09/23/2023

TL;DR

• Contract vote passes with 95.8% for and 4.2% against

• Next steps are writing our constitution, electing officers, and enforcing our contract

• Dues collection will not begin until our constitution is ratified; voluntary contributions still critical

• More details to come in the upcoming days

Dear fellow graduate workers,

We are happy to announce that the tentative agreement that we reached with the MIT Administration has been officially ratified into a contract by vote of the membership! 999 members (95.8%) voted to ratify the tentative agreement, while 44 (4.2%) voted against it. This means that after our years of fighting, MIT graduate workers now have a legally binding contract that sets in place the protections and benefits we all deserve.

In the coming days, we will be reaching out with more information on the next steps, including starting the democratic process of writing our union constitution, which will lay out our policies and structure. We will also be in touch about plans for interim contract enforcement, including handling of grievances, and a potential timeline for the election of union officers.

Dues collection will not begin until the constitution is voted into effect, to ensure that procedures and policies around dues, which will be established in the constitution, are clear to all members. If you are currently contributing voluntary dues or wish to contribute, those remain critical during this interim period to cover administrative staff and software expenses, and we ask that you not discontinue them until formal dues collection begins. All members will be notified before formal dues collection begins, and we will set procedures in place to ensure that no one is charged for both voluntary contributions and union dues.

Through years of determined collective action, MIT graduate workers have won a strong union and a historic contract that provides us the benefits and protections we need and sets us up to gain more in the future. Everyone who joined the union, talked to their coworkers, came to union events, and stood up for themselves and each other was a direct part of winning this contract. Together, we have made real progress toward a fair MIT.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

09/12/2023

TL;DR

• FULL TENTATIVE AGREEMENT REACHED! MIT MOVED BECAUSE OF OUR STRIKE THREAT

• UNION SECURITY, REAL RECOURSE, AND ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS WON

• Details to come later this week and at meetings next week

• General Membership Meeting tomorrow at 5:30pm will be a celebration and a discussion of next steps

Dear fellow graduate workers,

On Tuesday, September 12—one week after we announced our strike plan and 24 hours before our General Membership Meeting, where we had planned to collectively launch our strike pledge—MIT met us for a last-minute bargaining session. Thanks to the tremendous pressure we all created through our pickets, RSVPs to the General Membership Meeting, and a looming strike threat, MIT moved on all three of our key issues: 

1. Real Recourse: Timely nondiscrimination procedures with access to full third-party arbitration, with the option for union stewards to accompany a graduate worker throughout the entire IDHR process.

2. Economics Package: A compensation package with a net compensation improvement that averages more than 10% for our members in the first year alone. This package includes 5.4%, 3.5%, and 3.25% successive annual raises; 83.8% dental premium coverage matching that of other employees; access to an optical insurance plan; 70% T-pass subsidy; and backpay to June 1 for both wages and dental. 

3. Union Security: Agency shop, which will ensure a strong and united union that allows our membership to hold MIT accountable and enforce the contract.

This represents a major contract win on our membership’s key issues. As such, the GSU Bargaining Committee has signed a tentative agreement on all articles. These benefits have been negotiated for all members with a TA/RA appointment, and MIT has committed to achieving equity on the economics package for Fellows as well. 

So, what comes next? Wednesday evening’s General Membership Meeting will shift from launching a strike pledge, to a celebration highlighting what we, collectively, have won and discussing our next steps. Later this week, we will send out a more detailed email with all the items in the contract and a recommendation from the Bargaining Committee. Next week, we will hold three information sessions for the membership to ask the BC any questions about the contract. We will also hold a week-long ratification vote next week for all union members to vote to ratify the contract.

This is a major victory for our union, and it is thanks to our members’ stalwart solidarity. We stand in solidarity with the over 25,000 UE graduate workers across the country who are fighting to achieve the same protections that we have won through years of organizing. 

When we fight, we win!

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

09/04/2023

TL;DR

• On August 31, MIT GSU BC presented reasonable contract proposals with major movement

• MIT admin continues to drag out negotiations on union security, compensation, and real recourse against harassment and discrimination

• The admin is leaving us no choice but to escalate toward a strike to win the contract that graduate workers need

• We are holding a General Membership Meeting on September 13 (RSVP here) to launch the strike pledge 

Dear fellow graduate workers,

As we made clear in our recent bargaining update email, we remain eager to work with the MIT administration to bring contract negotiations to a close. In order to get this contract done, we took the lead at last week’s bargaining sessions to make major movements and attempt to compromise with the admin on key issues, while ensuring that we still met the core needs of graduate workers. Yet, MIT remains unreasonably stubborn about their proposals.

We need a contract that provides fair compensation, that allows for real recourse against harassment and discrimination, and that ensures a strong union able to enforce this contract and protect all graduate workers. In order to win the contract we know we need and deserve, we must escalate our contract fight. Day after day, the MIT admin continues to stall our contract over three core issues, leaving us no choice but to build toward a strike. We have proven our willingness to negotiate and reason with the admin, but the admin is choosing to push this campus on a path toward a crisis. 

As the first step on our path to a strike, we will be launching a strike pledge, in which GSU members will state our commitment to strike for our contract if necessary. If the MIT admin continues to ignore our needs and continues its attempts to delegitimize our union, we will move towards a strike authorization vote, where the thousands of MIT graduate workers in our membership will vote on approving a strike. 

At this stage, escalating toward a strike is not only about securing a strong contract, it’s also about winning a union that is unified and representative of all graduate workers. We know that our proposals on union security, compensation, and harassment and discrimination protections will help all graduate workers do the research that we came to MIT to do. Grad unions at the University of California system and the University of Michigan escalated to strikes recently and won significantly improved contracts. By disrupting business as usual, we will show MIT the crucial value that graduate workers bring to the Institute.

As we escalate toward a strike, we will continue to bargain with MIT, as only the administration can resolve the demands from thousands of graduate workers for fair compensation, real recourse, and union shop. It is our fervent hope that the admin makes the reasonable decision to settle this contract. 

On Wednesday, September 13, at 5:30pm, in Hockfield Court, we will all gather for our first General Membership Meeting (GMM) to launch our strike pledge.RSVP for the GMM here and be sure to bring your friends and coworkers with you. If you have questions or want to get involved in our contract fight, we encourage you to speak with your department organizers. 

United for a fair MIT,
MIT GSU BC

08/31/2023

TL;DR

• To try to reach an agreement, GSU BC presented a full package with major movements on stipends and harassment and discrimination protections, while still addressing our membership’s needs. Notably, this package would be completely reasonable for MIT to accept and MIT has no excuse to keep stalling.

• MIT presented a version of open shop that would further discourage union participation, thereby weakening our power.

• Our September 13 General Membership Meeting (GMM) will be the beginning of a series of major escalatory actions to motivate MIT to settle this contract. All graduate students should attend, as our power is in our numbers. RSVP here!

Dear fellow graduate workers,

The Bargaining Committee (BC) met with the MIT administration’s team this past Thursday, August 31, to continue negotiations. As we approach the General Membership Meeting (GMM) on September 13 and the rising threat of a crisis on campus due to the MIT admin’s inaction, the BC made significant changes to our proposal, and presented a complete package that offers them no room to continue making excuses:

• An 8.75% stipend increase with Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) in subsequent years, to address unpredictable inflation

• Harassment and discrimination protections that provide the option for fixed timelines and third party arbitration, and meets MIT’s desire to begin the process in IDHR

• Union shop to ensure a strong union that can successfully enforce our contract

The package MIT now has in front of them is not only reasonable, but is also fair and concretely addresses the needs of graduate workers. We have moved significantly to show the MIT admin that we are committed to negotiating a fair contract, but they have yet to reciprocate on our key issues.

We have continued to urge them to compromise on as many areas as they can, and have seen some progress as a result of our escalating actions over the past few months, including our pickets and the “no” vote. Most notably, we were able to push the MIT admin to ~84% dental insurance coverage, finally putting our dental benefits on par with those of other MIT employees. We also accepted a $10k need-based child care benefit for workers with children. However, on the biggest issues, the pressure we’ve built so far through these actions has not yet moved them in the right direction. 

Instead, the MIT administration presented an ostensibly new union security clause that simply repackages their original open shop proposal, which does not provide our membership with the main advantages of union shop, and  further discourages union membership. They also failed to bring anything new to the table on our other core issues, including access to third-party arbitrators, a guaranteed timeline for harassment and discrimination, and reasonable raises. We urge MIT to move on these critical rights to graduate workers at our next bargaining session on September 8.

With our package—which was carefully crafted to make many compromises to satisfy the MIT admin while still meeting the core needs of graduate workers—addressing all the core issues remaining on the table, the bargaining committee believes that the only path forward is to motivate a final agreement from MIT through escalatory actions. 

As a first step of major sequential escalations, we will hold a General Membership Meeting on September 13 as a mass action for all graduate workers to come together and tell MIT that we are ready and willing to take the strongest possible collective action to secure a strong contract. We’ll be sending out another email shortly to lay out our plan and the reasons why this is the only way to win the contract we deserve. We invite everyone to come to the GMM on the September 13 and turn the heat up further on MIT.

United for a fair MIT,
MIT GSU BC

08/11/2023

Dear fellow graduate workers,

This past Friday, August 11, the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) met with the MIT administration for another bargaining session. Both sides felt it would be most productive for subsets of the respective teams to meet, in order to arrive at an agreement on details regarding specific compensation provisions for our contract. We specifically discussed:

• Continuity of funding and nonresidential student status,

• Degree programs named in MIT’s proposed “special circumstances” section of the compensation article, as well as hourly workers and partial appointments, and

• Issues related to hardship funds.

Our respective subcommittees will be meeting again on Wednesday, August 16, to wrap up discussions on these items so that each side can then prepare proposed contract language to be presented at our next bargaining session on August 31, with both sides’ full bargaining teams.

While our discussions of these important detail issues have been productive, the admin is still stalling on our three key issues. Our resounding 88% NO Vote on the admin’s May 4 proposed contract package showed that the membership demands that MIT make serious movement on: (1) timely nondiscrimination procedures with third-party arbitration, (2) an adequate compensation package, and (3) union security, via a union shop that will ensure us the power to hold MIT accountable for enforcing the contract.

We can no longer abide the admin’s stalling. MIT grad workers need a strong contract with these three key provisions. Unless the administration moves, we have no choice but to create a disruption that they cannot ignore. Together, through our collective strength and participation, we have the power to create a juggernaut of escalatory action—and we are currently preparing to do so. On August 30, our Contract Action Team (CAT) will meet again to continue escalation preparation. Then, on September 13, we will hold a General Membership Meeting, at which we invite all grad workers to gather and launch this action. If you want to get involved or learn more, we encourage you to speak with your department organizers.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

07/31/2023

TL;DR

• We are waiting on contract-relevant information that won’t be available by this Monday, 7/31.

• Both sides have mutually agreed to postpone bargaining to a date in the next few weeks (TBD).

• The Contract Action Team will convene this week to plan escalatory actions to win our contract. Join the CAT and help us prepare to move MIT through action.

Dear fellow graduate workers,

The MIT administration’s bargaining team and the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) have mutually agreed to postpone the Monday, July 31st bargaining session. More information is needed so that we can productively work on the remaining issues, and won’t be available by this Monday. The two sides are working together to schedule new bargaining dates for the weeks of August 7th and August 14th.

Graduate workers have made it clear, with an overwhelming No vote in May, that we need to see movement on union security, a fair compensation package, and neutral third-party arbitration for harassment and discrimination cases. As we said in our last email, we will be convening our full Contract Action Team (CAT) this week to discuss and strategize our escalatory response. We encourage anyone interested in joining the CAT to fill out this form or reach out to your BC representative. Our past wins at the table show that we will need to put collective pressure on MIT administration to reach a fair contract. We won our union by standing together and taking action: we know we can win a strong contract the same way.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

07/24/2023

TL;DR

• MIT arrived at bargaining with no new proposals on union shop or any other key issue, and no clear plan for moving forward.

• We urged MIT to give us a serious offer next Monday but need to prepare for continued stalling.

• The Contract Action Team will convene next week to discuss MIT’s response. Join the CAT and help us prepare to move MIT through action.

Dear fellow graduate workers,

This Monday, July 24, the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) met with MIT administration's bargaining team for the first time in over two months, following the graduate workers’ resounding rejection of MIT’s proposals in May. We came in expecting MIT’s team to propose new directions forward, especially on union security. Instead, we had a frustrating session with little movement.

MIT admin arrived with no agenda and no proposals on our most pressing issues: compensation, real recourse for harassment and discrimination, and union security. They then refused to discuss any compromise or movement on union security, which graduate workers understand is vital to enforcing the contract and maintaining the protections we have won into the future. We're troubled by MIT's unreasoning stubbornness on an issue that holds material consequences for the viability of our union. Indeed, at this point, we cannot help but wonder if their stance is rooted less in any real practical concerns that we could work through together than in a purely ideological position.

In an attempt to make progress, members of the Bargaining Committee met with lead negotiators from MIT admin in a sidebar meeting for a frank discussion of our members’ needs and whether they are willing to work toward a real settlement. As Sophie Coppieters ’t Wallant, BC representative for DMSE, said at the table on behalf of the BC :

“Our membership has made it abundantly clear that union shop is an issue of the utmost importance to them. And we’re confident that, if you can work with us on union security, we can reach an agreement that works for all of us on this contract. But our membership will not continue to wait for you.”

We pressed MIT to come back with a serious offer that we can work with, one that secures our union, provides a livable wage increase, and provides real recourse in cases of harassment and discrimination. They have a chance at our bargaining session next Monday, July 31st, to show that they understand that graduate workers won’t settle for less, and we hope they come back to the table ready to work with us in earnest.

By coming to the table empty-handed this week, the MIT admin have shown their disregard for our democracy, our work, and our fight for better working conditions. They are showing us that they can only be reached through action. Many of our most substantive wins, including robust health and safety protections and significant increases in dental coverage, have come only after major graduate worker actions. By willfully ignoring our membership’s unambiguous 88% vote to reject their proposed contract, the MIT admin are forcing our hand toward escalating actions to compel them to listen.

The BC is committed to produce the best possible agreement with MIT’s administration. We understand our members’ pressing needs, and that grad workers cannot wait much longer for a response from the administration.

If we do not see genuine movement from MIT admin on July 31st, we will convene our full Contract Action Team (CAT) to discuss and strategize our escalatory response. We encourage anyone interested in joining the CAT to fill out this form or reach out to your BC representative. Our strength has always come from thousands of graduate workers standing together to build a better, safer, and more equitable research environment.

MIT is hoping that if they continue to ignore your voice, your decision to unionize, and even your overwhelming rejection of their proposals, then we will all just go away quietly and stop trying. We’re committed to keep fighting as long as it takes, and we know that with all of us standing together, they won’t be able to ignore us. Let’s show MIT that graduate workers will not wait any longer for a fair contract.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

05/04/2023

TL;DR

• MIT offered an effective pay cut, refused meaningful protections against harassment and discrimination, and rejected a union shop that would allow grad workers to enforce our rights and our contract. 

• The bargaining committee recommends that graduate workers vote NO on the Institute’s current contract proposal. 

Today, May 4, the MIT administration and the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) met for what we had agreed would be the last bargaining session of the academic year, so that we could call for a vote on the contract this month. 

The BC arrived at today’s session prepared to stay for however long it would take to reach an agreement. Unfortunately, MIT left today’s session having provided us their “best offer” and declined to meet with us further before the vote. Their proposal remains starkly insufficient on our biggest issues, including fair wages, meaningful protection from harassment and discrimination, and the ability to have a strong union that can enforce our contract. Therefore, the BC is calling for all graduate workers to vote NO on the Institute’s current proposal.

MIT would not move beyond a 5.25% raise—an effective pay cut in the face of increasing rent and grocery costs—with substantially lower raises in subsequent years. Moreover, MIT refused to agree to a union grievance procedure to provide graduate workers real recourse from harassment and discrimination.

Lastly, MIT seeks to cripple our ability to enforce our union contract by rejecting a union shop provision. As we have stated repeatedly, graduate workers will not accept a contract without union shop. We are deeply disappointed that MIT has declined to respect the democratic decision of graduate workers to form a strong union.

In a final effort to reach an agreement now, we asked MIT if they had any intention to meet the needs of graduate workers by addressing these critical issues today. Unfortunately, MIT said they did not. With that choice, MIT decided that we would not be settling a contract at this time.

We can and will win a contract that secures the rights we deserve. The first step is to declare collectively that we will not accept what MIT has offered by voting NO on their proposal. We will not accept pay raises below inflation; we will not accept an environment in which workers are not protected from harassment and discrimination; and we will not accept the divided, weakened union that MIT’s open shop proposal would create. 

Therefore, we are bringing the Institute’s proposal, as it stands, to a vote by the membership later this month, with a recommendation by the bargaining committee to vote NO. 

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

04/24/2023

TL;DR: 

• MIT has made some small movements in response to our April action—but not yet enough to meet grad workers’ needs

• They increased their raise offer by just half a percent (to 4.5%), with insufficient movement on harassment and discrimination, and nothing on union shop

• We only have 2 bargaining sessions left. Sign up for our May 1 picket to ensure that we obtain the strong contract we deserve—one with protections against discrimination, benefits for a healthy life, and a stipend increase that reflects our financial realities

Dear fellow graduate workers, 

On Monday, April 24, the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee met with the MIT administration for a half-day bargaining session. We were pleased to see that MIT responded to our action on April 14 with movement on some key issues—but many of our greatest concerns have still not been addressed.

MIT presented an improved, but still inadequate, economic counteroffer. Their proposal includes a 4.5% raise in the first year of the contract (up from 4%), but no change in raises set for the second (3.5%) and third years (3%).  Such raises would not be tied to the increasing local cost of living, and would represent an effective pay cut in our current inflationary environment. MIT also proposed to cover only 50% of the existing student dental plan’s premium (still costing graduate workers hundreds of dollars for a basic health need), and offered no premium coverage at all for vision.

We have made progress on other economic issues, including extended medical leaves with health insurance benefits and a commitment from MIT to preserve all current health insurance benefits. We also made progress on non-economic issues, with another tentative agreement signed and many other articles nearing agreement. However, there are two major outstanding issues on which MIT has not put forward a realistic and meaningful position that we can accept: harassment and discrimination protections, and union shop.

MIT made some limited movement on their nondiscrimination counterproposal. Under their language, graduate workers would still be required to go through the existing IDHR process, but would later have the option to escalate non-Title IX claims through a limited version of arbitration. This would take an unacceptably long time, and lacks many of the options for resolution in our proposal. MIT also continues to insist that claims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other Title IX discrimination should only be addressed through their inadequate IDHR process. While we welcome any movement from MIT on this issue, we cannot accept a plan that refuses to grant victims of sexual harassment the same protections extended to everyone else.

Finally, MIT once again had nothing to show us on union shop. As we reiterated to the administration yet again, the GSU bargaining committee will not recommend ratification of a contract without a union shop, which is a standard part of all existing union contracts at MIT. The administration’s current stance is union-busting, plain and simple. It is intended to undermine our union and our ability to protect each other through union action.

It’s clear that MIT knows that they must reach a real, viable solution on these issues—but they apparently still aren’t feeling enough pressure. We’ve made it clear at the table that, while we’re willing to work with them on all these points, we need solutions that materially address graduate workers’ needs. With only two bargaining sessions remaining, it’s time to bring greater pressure than ever before. Sign up for picket shifts for our May Day action next Monday. We’ve seen that action can move them like nothing else, so it’s time to make MIT meet us on fair compensation and benefits, a safe workplace, and a secure union. 

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

04/21/2023

TL;DR: 

• We have delivered an economic counterproposal that substantially bridges the gap between our position and MIT’s, without compromising on graduate workers’ financial needs.

• MIT failed again to offer any proposal on anti-harassment protections or union shop.

• To ensure that we obtain the strong contract we deserve—one with protections against discrimination and a stipend increase that reflects our financial realities—sign up for shifts during our all-day informational picket on May 1, from 9am to 6pm.

Dear fellow graduate workers, 

The MIT GSU Bargaining Committee sat down with MIT representatives on Thursday, April 21, to work toward an agreement on our contract. The GSU BC made a major effort to come closer to a meaningful agreement, giving MIT revised versions of not only all of our economic proposals but also the international workers’ rights and academic discipline and discharge articles. We’ve worked hard to reach a compromise with them on many issues while making sure that the contract provisions reflect the preserving urgent needs of our bargaining unit., including an 18.5% raise, dental and vision insurance, medical costs, transit costs, child care, and relieving the inequitable burden on international workers. 

When we meet MIT next Monday for a half-day of bargaining, they will need to move significantly from their current position. So far, MIT has not been ready to reach a serious agreement on our major outstanding issues. In particular, MIT failed to present any proposal whatsoever on two major issues still on the table: harassment and discrimination protections, and union shop.

People throughout the MIT community—including graduate workers, undergraduates, and faculty—know that IDHR does not adequately protect us from harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Despite months of presentations, testimonials, and clear data from our union that show the magnitude of the problems with IDHR, MIT has steadfastly remained unwilling to offer grad workers an alternative to the flawed IDHR processes. Meanwhile, they have chosen to align themselves with Jim Crow-era policies in their efforts to block union shop. A union shop is a standard part of all other MIT worker contracts, and is a necessary part of any strong union contract. By denying us union shop, MIT is seeking to undermine graduate workers’ choice to form a union.

At this late stage of negotiations, it is unconscionable that MIT is still dragging its feet on these vital issues. If they refuse to be moved by reason, data, or basic human decency, then we have no choice but to take action.

There are only two weeks left—and only two one full bargaining sessions—until we need a fair contract on the table this semester. We came out in strength for our picket last week, but we need to show that we can and will escalate to win the rights we know we deserve. The GSU has made sincere efforts to close on a contract that we can all agree to, but MIT has failed to move on essential issues, including fair pay, real recourse, and union shop. It’s time to act: join our picket on May 1 to show MIT that we will not accept a contract that does not meet graduate workers’ urgent needs.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

04/06/2023

TL;DR: 

• We only have 2 full-day bargaining sessions left.

• The only way forward on our major outstanding issues, especially a stipend increase that reflects our financial realities, is through public action. Sign up for shifts during our all-day informational picket on April 14, 9am–5pm.

• We won funded health insurance and tuition remission for graduate workers during 8 weeks of medical, family care, or child bonding leave.

Dear fellow graduate workers, 

On Thursday, April 6th, the MIT administration and the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee met for our 18th bargaining session. MIT has continued to deny us contract language to significantly improve our working conditions by May while signaling that they will only agree to these provisions if we can demonstrate how necessary this contract is for all grad workers. With only 2 full-day bargaining sessions left for this academic year, the way forward is with our feet. Now is our time to demonstrate our unity and resolve to fight for a fair contract as grad workers by showing up to our April 14 informational picket to make our demands for increased stipend and benefits clearly heard by the administration. Sign up for shifts for our all-day informational picket to show MIT we have collective power and significant support behind these proposals.

During this session, MIT did deliver some minor movement on non-economic issues (see the bargaining tracker), and another major economic item for our membership: We have won funded health insurance and tuition remission for graduate workers taking up to 8 weeks of medical, family, or child bonding leave! This means when individuals need to take leave for any of these reasons they get to keep their health insurance and it is now also paid for by the employer!

This fight for the rights and well-being of MIT graduate workers started over 4 years ago, and we are now at the culmination of our efforts . In these final few weeks, we have an amazing opportunity to win better benefits, pay and protections for graduate workers at MIT. The path forward will be illuminated by our membership uniting on the 14th at our day-long informational picket, with the goal of showing MIT that we have power, support, and the will to take action for our rights. Sign up for shifts to win the rights that thousands of us have sought for years. 

We look forward to seeing you on the picket line next Friday!

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

03/29/2023

TL;DR: 

• MIT still refuses access to a union grievance procedure to address instances of harassment, discrimination, and bullying. 

• MIT’s current stance against union shop undermines the GSU’s ability to enforce our future contract and serves to create arbitrary distinctions between grad workers. 

• The GSU presented revised economic proposals, with particular emphasis on topics most important to our membership, including dental and commuter subsidies.

• The lack of movement from MIT’s side on key issues shows the need to escalate public pressure on MIT. Sign up for shifts during our day-long informational picket during Campus Preview Weekend!

Dear fellow graduate workers, 

On Wednesday, March 29th, the MIT administration and the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee met for our 17th bargaining session. The session started with additional discussion regarding our non-economic proposals (see our bargaining tracker for the most up-to-date information). After one and a half months, MIT finally delivered their response to our nondiscrimination article. Their response included a significant single word—the addition of caste to the list of protected classes. Unfortunately, it did not provide much else in terms of real movement, as they are still denying full access to the union grievance procedure and, most importantly, access to an independent arbitrator for instances of discrimination, harassment, and bullying. This highlights the need for us as a union to continue pressuring the administration for real recourse, especially at the picket this upcoming Campus Preview Weekend (CPW) on April 14 (more info at the end of this email). 

MIT also failed to provide a counterproposal for our Union Security article, which they haven’t responded to since December, citing ideological differences over union shop. This sparked a very candid discussion over the topic. We see MIT’s position against union shop as a blatant anti-union tactic aimed to weaken the MIT GSU to the point where we would be unable to effectively enforce the contract that we are currently negotiating over. Although this provision is still being actively negotiated, several members of our bargaining committee made it clear to the administration that we would not leave the table without it.

In the afternoon, we presented MIT with our revised proposals on economics (see Compensation, Benefits, and Leave on our bargaining tracker) and emphasized the importance of key provisions important to our members, including: 

• upfront payment of initial moving costs,

• full elimination of fees,

• dental and vision insurance coverage,

• benefits for those with dependents (e.g. childcare, lower health insurance premiums),

• and health insurance coverage while on medical leave,

among others. We have 4.5 weeks to win these economic proposals in time for summer. To win the economic benefits we all deserve, come join the picket on April 14 during CPW.

Throughout our negotiations, the MIT administration has made it clear that they will refuse to move on key topics at the negotiating table without public pressure. Therefore, we are organizing a day-long informational picket on April 14 during MIT’s most public event, Campus Preview Weekend, where prospective undergraduate students and their families come to experience what MIT has to offer. Come and join our picket line to show that we as a union stand behind real recourse, union shop, equal rights and protections for international students, and fair salaries and benefits for graduate workers. Sign up for shifts here, and contact your BC rep or departmental organizer if you have any questions! 

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

03/22/2023

TL;DR

• We are seeking a deadline of May 4 to finish negotiations, so pay raises can go into effect on time this summer as usual.

• MIT delivered subpar economic counterproposals that would maintain the status quo, with a mere 4% pay raise and no dental coverage.

• This gives us six weeks to apply the pressure needed to win the best possible contract. 

• Grad workers rallied outside the bargaining session Wednesday, advocating for real recourse, international workers’ rights, the inclusion of fellows in the bargaining unit, and union shop.

Dear fellow graduate workers,

On Wednesday, the MIT administration and MIT GSU Bargaining Committee met for our 16th bargaining session at the MIT Office of the General Counsel. After receiving four non-economic counterproposals from MIT in the morning, the BC challenged MIT on their lack of movement on real recourse or international workers’ rights. 

At noon, our union held a rally outside the bargaining session to show the MIT administration that grad workers will not allow MIT to continue ignoring these key issues. With over a hundred grad workers blocking the sidewalk and the sounds of bucket drums, powerful speeches from our fellow grad workers, and chants demanding respect echoing through the General Counsel’s office, we showed MIT that our members can and will disrupt their work if they fail to give us serious responses to our proposals that ensure graduate workers’ safety, well-being, and financial security. As BGSA leader Austin Cole told rally attendees today, “we deserve respect.”

After the rally, MIT finally produced their economic counterproposals (full text here). Unsurprisingly, their response falls far short of any meaningful improvement to our financial well-being. Their response included:

• A 4% raise this year, followed by 3.5% and 3% raises in the following two years,with no accounting for year-over-year inflation (and well below the GSC’s calculation of a 6.8% increase in our cost of living since last year),

• No coverage for dental or vision insurance, and

• No proposals to address the cost, safety, and comfort of housing.

Their proposals were, in fact, little more than codifications of existing MIT policies, rather than meaningful responses to our proposals that came about after thousands of conversations with our fellow grad workers. MIT did propose a lump sum of $1000 for international workers when they start at MIT to cover their visa fees, flight tickets to the United States, and moving costs; however, each of these three expenses can cost much more than $1000. 

This is the administration’s initial counterproposal, indicating the administration’s ideal scenario. MIT well knows that our membership will not accept a contract without key items like dental and vision insurance, commute benefits, and a meaningful stipend increase. They signaled this at the table by repeatedly stating that they “are open to discussing” these and other proposals “as we go along.” Refusing to open with a serious response on core issues is a known tactic, intended to demoralize us. While they know it is unlikely, MIT is hoping that we’ll simply give up on key demands in our economic proposals and accept their hollow offer in order to avoid pay stagnation this upcoming July. It is therefore important that we recognize MIT wants to stall, and it is our actions in the next six weeks that will win fair compensation and better benefits on time.

We told MIT that we’re committed to reaching a full contract by the second week of May, so that our members see tangible benefits and raises this summer. This requires a full tentative agreement on both economic and non-economic proposals on May 4, followed by a contract ratification vote the week of May 8–12. The MIT GSU BC and MIT administration have 5 more sessions to negotiate these key demands. 

But there’s only so much the BC alone can do at the table. To secure these critical demands, we all have to organize. Talk to your coworkers about how you feel about these proposals and what you want to fight for—we’ll be in touch about ways to take action very soon. We have six weeks left: now is the time to bring the pressure from our membership to ensure that we win a truly great contract. 

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

03/13/2023

TL;DR: 

• MIT once again declined to present any economic counter-offers, and reiterated the same claims presented in the previous session

• The administration justified our inadequate pay and benefits by claiming that “graduate workers are compensated $126k a year to work 20 hours/week.”

• We signed tentative agreements on 3 articles: Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Appointment Notification.

• On March 22, we will be holding a speakout to show our support for stronger protections from harassment, union security, and removing artificial restrictions on internship opportunities for international workers (CPT/OPT). We call on everyone who wants a fair contract that protects our rights to RSVP today!

Dear fellow graduate workers,

This week, the MIT GSU BC met with the administration on Monday, March 13, for our 15th bargaining session. MIT started off by reiterating the lack of flexibility in their budget to provide graduate workers reasonable material conditions. According to their calculations, graduate workers are already “compensated” $126K a year to work 20 hours/week. Of this, almost ⅔ of the purported compensation goes toward covering the tuition that MIT charges itself – money grad workers never see. MIT’s claim that “tuition is pay” while many graduate workers live barely above the poverty line and work well over full-time is a gross insult and a tone-deaf justification for imposing financial hardship on our members. 

We stand firm that graduate workers deserve pay to not just cover bare necessities, but also to fund what MIT apparently views as premium items: Dental care, menstrual products, building emergency savings, and affordable housing. In this vein, we reiterate a message as old as the labor movement itself: give us bread, but give us roses, too.

MIT has now spent two bargaining sessions giving nearly identical presentations on economics. We communicated that given this lack of progress and the relatively longer lead time, we expect substantive responses on economic items at our next session on March 22.

While we are still waiting to hear MIT’s response to our economic proposals, we negotiated tentative agreements on three articles: Bargaining Unit Information, Health and Safety, and Appointment Notification. These articles secure guarantees that will allow fellow graduate workers and our union to operate to our best capabilities, with all relevant information transparently provided to us. You can see these agreements in our bargaining tracker.

Despite positive movement on some of our non-economic proposals, MIT has again not provided any response to our demands for a grievance procedure to apply to cases of harassment, discrimination, and bullying. This is one month after the impassioned arguments put forth by representatives of BGSA, LGBTQ+Grad, LGSA, GSC-DEI, and the MSRP Alumni Network. We also once again called on MIT to provide equal treatment and parity of professional opportunities for international workers. Despite our presentation showing how MIT’s CPT/OPT policies are among the worst and most restrictive of any peer institutions, they are still unwilling to discuss change. MIT’s continued reluctance to act means that we must demonstrate strong support outside of the bargaining room for these vitally important issues.

MIT has also signaled that they intend to fight us on the creation of a union shop. Labor law mandates that the union represent all bargaining unit members whenever they face issues on the job – both those who join the union and those who do not. In a union shop, those who choose to not join the union do not pay dues, but rather only pay the union for the costs associated with representing them. If MIT were to have their way, we would have an open shop in which non-members pay nothing at all, despite receiving all of the benefits and protections of a dues-paying member. This would greatly weaken the union, since we would all benefit from the gains and support of our union, but have less resources to support the costs of contract enforcement, representation, and future negotiations. For the sake of all future graduate workers who will be dependent on the strength of our union during their own contract negotiations, we must not allow this to occur.

On March 22, we will be holding a speakout supporting our demands for anti-discrimination, international worker protections, and a secure union during next week’s bargaining session. This speakout will occur outside 105 Broadway from 12:00-12:45 PM. If you are against racism, sexism, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in our workplace, if you want to fight for equal access to opportunities for international and domestic workers alike, or if you want to ensure that our union has the financial support necessary to represent all members, come join us on the right side of MIT’s history. RSVP for our speakout on March 22! It’s never a convenient time to be harassed, discriminated against, or bullied. So come join the hundreds of graduate workers who will stand against it together!

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

03/08/2023

TL;DR

• MIT’s Executive Vice President and Treasurer, Glen Shor, delivered a presentation about MIT’s finances.

• MIT asked the GSU questions about our economic proposals, but provided no response at this time.

• We presented a legal memo from the UE General Counsel stating legal precedent that a union grievance procedure to handle cases of Harassment, Discrimination and Bullying is legally compatible with Title IX in academic environments.

• We discussed the delay in the NLRB decision on the inclusion of fellows in the bargaining unit. MIT continues to reject the inclusion of fellows, stating that “they don’t get paid to do work at MIT”

• We exchanged several non-economic articles and are nearing Tentative Agreements on three topics, including Health and Safety

Dear fellow graduate workers,

On Wednesday, MIT and the MIT GSU BC met for our 14th bargaining session. MIT started the session with a presentation on their finances by Glen Shor, the current Executive Vice President and Treasurer. His presentation laid out the purpose and limitations of MIT’s primary revenue generator, its $24.6 billion endowment, but did not provide rationale for setting their high graduate tuition rates nor give any explanation on how they plan to address the serious affordability crisis facing graduate workers at MIT. Later in the session, they asked us several questions about our economic proposals, but had no counter proposals at this time. 

This bargaining session, moreover, has special significance as it occurred on International Women’s Day. In the spirit of this, MIT GSU delivered a legal memo from our General Counsel. Since we started bargaining, MIT has continuously cited federal Title IX regulations that tightly circumscribe the scope of investigations as the main reason preventing them from allowing a union grievance procedure to resolve complaints regarding harassment, discrimination, and bullying. The union memo cites relevant federal case law that has established the legality of parallel Title IX processes and union grievance processes. This means that implementing our grievance procedure for harassment, discrimination, and bullying would not violate any requirement of Title IX. Despite the clear legal precedent, MIT has decided to explicitly carve out this section meant to prevent racism, sexism, discrimination, harassment, and bullying on campus. MIT still is unable to answer why they will not agree to have these fundamental rights–which guarantee a welcoming and inclusive workplace–covered under our grievance procedure.

We also discussed the status of fellows, as the Labor Board has not yet delivered a decision on allowing fellows to vote to become part of the union. MIT stated that they want to push forward without including fellows in the contract we are currently negotiating. They repeated their position that fellows are not paid to perform work. We stand firm in our conviction that fellows are workers too, just like RAs and TAs, and deserve the same rights as all other graduate workers.

Finally, both sides exchanged several non-economic articles and reached plans to sign a tentative agreement on the Bargaining Unit Information article at the next session. There has been substantial movement on Health and Safety and Appointment Notification, and we expect to reach an agreement on these topics soon as well. We are, however, still awaiting a meaningful response on the Nondiscrimination and Professional Rights articles. MIT also now owes us a response on the economic articles we presented at the last session.

With all our proposals now on the table, it’s time to show MIT how important these demands are to our bargaining unit. Throughout the fall, we saw that the best way to make progress at the table was through support from our fellow graduate students outside of the bargaining table. We are looking to expand our Contract Action Team (CAT) - if you would like to play an active role in improving our working conditions at MIT, you can join the CAT here.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

02/27/2023

TL;DR

• We presented our full set of economic proposals to MIT, advocating for real change via conversations with, outreach to, and a collage of thousands of graduate workers.

• MIT brought the head of the Office of General Counsel, Mark DiVincenzo, to defend and discuss MIT’s position that Harassment, Discrimination and Bullying should not be grievable.

• MIT gave counterproposals for a few articles. Most notable is their continued lack of movement on CPT/OPT, the top concern for international workers.

Dear fellow graduate workers,

On Monday, MIT and the MIT GSU BC met for our 13th bargaining session. MIT GSU formally presented the rest of our economic proposals at this session. For this, MIT administration entered the room to see a banner collage of the thousands of graduate workers who stand united behind our economic proposals and the real material change these proposals would make to our lives as graduate workers. This immense outreach was done by hundreds of GSU organizers to thousands of graduate workers to build and consolidate support for our economic proposals. 

This represents a significant milestone for our union in our goal to improve our working conditions at MIT. Grad workers have faced serious economic pressures for some time, which is a core reason why we voted to unionize. Our bargaining committee members gave powerful presentations for each article and explained why these economic benefits are urgently and critically needed. You can find the bullet summary of these proposals here, and the full text of the proposals here. 

In addition to economic proposals, we exchanged another round of noneconomic proposals. Notably, MIT still refuses to implement CPT courses in every graduate program, in order for international graduate workers to pursue internships just like their domestic peers. According to our bargaining survey, CPT/OPT access is the most important issue facing international workers, who consist of over 40% of our graduate workforce. Having movement from MIT on this issue is critical to getting a contract settlement which GSU members will support. We must come together and motivate MIT to make real progress on this crucial item.

To defend their current proposal and engage in a dialogue regarding a way forward, the MIT administration brought in Mark DiVincenzo, the head of the Office of the General Counsel, to discuss our proposal of a grievance process for harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Mark’s presence is a positive confirmation that our membership’s efforts – in both last Friday’s installation and from the student leaders’ testimonies at the last bargaining session – have forced MIT to take our harassment, discrimination and bullying (HDB) proposals seriously and work towards a real response.

We discussed the details of what we are trying to accomplish: to have a system to resolve HDB claims that can end in neutral third-party arbitration, on reasonable timelines, and without requiring complainants to first sign an NDA before undergoing the process. A system without these basic attributes fails to give graduate workers proper recourse when they have been mistreated and fails to deter potential abusers from mistreating graduate workers. Unfortunately, the administration has been unable to provide a response to the following questions for multiple sessions: 

• Why not allow graduate workers the free choice between a union grievance procedure and MIT’s existing IDHR process?

• Why not have an option that ends in neutral third-party arbitration?

Although we did not receive a counterproposal on our Nondiscrimination article this session, we hope to see a full response in the upcoming session on March 8. 

With all our proposals now on the table, it’s time to show MIT how important these demands are to our bargaining unit. Throughout the fall, we saw that the best way to make progress at the table was through support from our fellow graduate students outside of the bargaining table. We are looking to expand our Contract Action Team (CAT) - if you would like to play an active role in improving our working conditions at MIT, you can join the CAT here.

In solidarity,
MIT GSU BC

02/17/2023

• TL;DR

  • Representatives from BGSA, LGSA, LGBTQ+Grad, GSC-DEI, and the MSRP alumni network delivered powerful statements in support of an empowering grievance procedure to address harassment, discrimination, and bullying.

  • MIT countered with weak, false arguments, showing they were under pressure, and were unable to refute the speakers’ claims.

  • We will accept nothing less than real recourse for our membership, and will be further escalating with campus-wide actions to achieve this.

  • We exchanged several other articles and presented our proposal on Leaves of Absence.

  Dear Fellow Graduate Workers,

  This past Friday, February 17, 2023, MIT and the MIT GSU BC met for our 12th bargaining session. We invited representatives from several graduate student organizations, who delivered statements challenging MIT on their refusal to accept a neutral grievance procedure to resolve cases of harassment, discrimination, and bullying. The student leaders represented:

  LGBTQ+ Grad at MIT

  Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA)

  Latinx Graduate Student Association (LGSA)

  Graduate Student Council-Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (GSC-DEI)

  MSRP (MIT Summer Research Program) Alumni

  Their powerful statements highlighted the race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-based harassment, discrimination, and outright bullying experienced by many of our fellow graduate workers at MIT. They directly challenged the administration’s repeated claims that the Institute’s internal process is satisfactory, explaining that the IHDR process isn’t supportive, is difficult to navigate, and that their members don’t trust MIT and IDHR to advocate for the truth or to protect them from retaliation. 

  On the contrary, a neutral grievance procedure will empower graduate workers to report their concerns, as they will be supported and guided by their stewards (who are also fellow graduate workers) through a process with enforceable time limits designed to achieve timely resolutions. This will ensure that grad workers can achieve resolution of their problems without the fear of retaliation.

  MIT’s response was inadequate and insulting. First, they claimed that they’ve heard positive feedback about their process. We responded by citing MIT’s own AAU Campus Climate Survey data that 47% of graduate women and 29% of graduate men experience harassment and discriminatory behaviors, while only 38 total employees (by their own accounting) have used their IDHR process in 2021-2022.  A small number of positive cases cannot balance out systemic underreporting to and widespread distrust of IDHR.

  Next, MIT tried to claim that it would be illegal for them to implement our process for real recourse in parallel to existing IDHR mechanisms. This is clearly false: many other recent graduate union contracts allow graduate workers to file grievances about harassment and discrimination. MIT disingenuously suggested that these graduate union contracts may have been written prior to the enactment of Title IX in 1972, which is patently not the case.

  MIT also failed to address their use of non-disclosure agreements as a regular part of IDHR’s “informal resolution” process. Requiring grad workers to sign an NDA severely curtails their freedom and has a negative impact on their well-being, one MIT apparently doesn’t treat seriously enough to even try to justify.

  The student leaders from BGSA and MSRP highlighted MIT’s hypocrisy in claiming to be a university committed to DEI while their demographics highlight a severe failing, compared to national averages and peer institutions, to create a DEI-friendly environment. This is only emphasized by their ongoing refusal to implement policies that encourage real change, like  menstrual product access or expanded protections for disadvantaged groups on campus.

  For those graduate workers who do wish to use MIT’s IDHR and Title IX processes, there is nothing in our contract proposals that would prevent them from doing so. We are not asking MIT to change their existing process or get rid of any benefits IDHR can provide. Given that an overwhelming majority of grad workers who have faced harassment, discrimination, and bullying choose not to use MIT’s internal processes, it is clear that we need a fair alternative to help resolve these deeply harmful issues. Indeed, when pressed on why grad workers should not be given the choice between IDHR and a neutral grievance procedure, MIT had no answer.

  MIT owes us a response on this matter at our upcoming February 27th bargaining session. After several months of negligence, it is past time to address this urgent issue. We will be holding a demonstration this week to further motivate MIT to move on this article. Come to our installation piece in Lobby 7 this Friday, February 24, from 10am-4pm, to talk with other graduate workers, add your own support, and show MIT that we need real recourse now.

  
  

  Other Articles Exchanged

  In a major win for our union, MIT has agreed to significantly strengthened protections for workplace health and safety. In addition to our past wins on health and safety, MIT conceded last week that graduate workers deserve a workplace free of any hazards, not just those enumerated under OSHA. We’ll be in touch soon with a more detailed message on all of the health and safety improvements we’ve won in our contract.

  In addition to Health and Safety, we received responses from MIT on multiple other articles and presented non-economic language of our own (see our Bargaining Tracker for full details). 

  At the end of the session, we presented a consolidated article on Leaves of Absence, incorporating both proposals for new policies, and codifying existing leave and time off policies. In this article, we advocate for full pay and benefitsfor graduate workers taking medical and family leaves, including full coverage of health insurance premiums. Currently, when graduate workers take medical leave, they lose their medical benefits and pay. We highlighted how this is both inhumane and bad for the Institute, as it undermines graduate workers’ ability to recover by imposing significant financial hardship. The article also proposes a range of other policies on leaves and time off that will improve grad workers’ ability to balance our lives and our work. You can now read about these in the full text of the article through the Bargaining Tracker.

  Our strong wins on health and safety show how effective it is when we come together to put pressure on MIT. We’ll need another strong show of solidarity to win real recourse against harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Sign up to join the Contract Action Team (CAT) to get updates on our next steps, and help us show MIT that you want a safe, harassment-free working environment to conduct your research.

  In solidarity,
  MIT GSU BC

02/01/2023

• TL;DR

  • International Worker Rights: We have won guarantees on ISO timeliness! But, MIT is still dragging their feet on making CPT/OPT available across campus.

  • See our proposal bargaining progress in our bargaining tracker! 

  • From not providing menstrual products in restrooms, to refusing a grievance procedure for harassment, discrimination and bullying, MIT continues to show that it prefers lofty words about equity and inclusion over actual change.

  • Contact your union rep to pose for our Economic Proposal Collage to show our strength and unity

  Dear fellow graduate workers,

  On Wednesday, MIT and the MIT GSU BC met for a short bargaining session. We made progress on International Employee Rights, winning standardized timelines for ISO to respond to queries! This was spurred by your testimonies on the extensive wait times international grad workers have faced in receiving forms from the ISO office, causing unnecessary stress to our international colleagues.. Unfortunately, MIT's response is still lacking, as they continue to refuse access to CPT and OPT for all grad workers.

  In addition to the articles exchanged during the session (see the bargaining tracker!), we highlighted our continued disappointment with MIT's stance against real recourse for harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Under MIT’s current IDHR process, grad workers are often pressured into entering protracted processes and unfavorable resolutions that ultimately protect the Institute and the harasser. We need a neutral grievance procedure so graduate workers who are discriminated against, harassed, or bullied can get a fair process and real recourse, with support from fellow grad workers.

  In addition, MIT is refusing to budge on providing basic necessities to grad workers by claiming that actions such as stocking menstrual products in all restrooms across campus is prohibitively expensive, when the amount they calculated for this expenditure represents less than 0.05% of their annual expenditures of $3.7B. This shows how the MIT administration will not move to provide basic necessities for graduate workers unless we increase the pressure outside of the bargaining table through our collective actions.

  As we approach tentative agreements on many of the noneconomic articles, we look forward to starting contract negotiations over our economic proposals. As we return to campus for the Spring semester, reach out to your union rep to join your coworkers in showing MIT our collective support for the economic proposals!

  In solidarity,
  MIT GSU BC

01/23/2023

• TL;DR

  • MIT is still holding out on essential Harassment, Discrimination, and Bullying protections

  • Significant progress on Health and Safety, Appointment Notification, and Union Rights articles

  • Show support for our upcoming economic proposals by taking a photo and telling MIT what you could do with $500 more every month

   

  Dear fellow graduate workers,

  On Monday, MIT and the MIT GSU BC met for our first bargaining session of 2023. MIT opened with a presentation on their proposed Harassment and Discrimination contract article. These presentations contained some damning data: in comparison to the national aggregate, the perpetrators of harassment against students at MIT were 1.8 times more likely to be faculty or instructors and 5 times more likely to be research staff. MIT also revealed that their process often extends for months beyond the intended timelines, and had no real response to our committee’s concerns about the likely biases of an MIT-run IDHR investigation. Despite the shortcomings highlighted by their own presentation, MIT maintained that graduate workers should not be allowed to use union grievances and arbitration to resolve issues of harassment, discrimination, or bullying. Instead, they continue to insist on the exclusive use of their IDHR process, in which MIT plays the role of prosecutor, defense, judge, and jury. This has proven time and time again to be insufficient to address workers’ needs.

  In their presentation, MIT claimed that they value giving graduate workers options, but they refused to allow the option of a union grievance process. In the union process, grievants can choose to have the support of their union representative by their side, and if necessary, escalate to arbitration independent of MIT’s influence and control. MIT instead offered an inadequate alternative, which would force workers to spend months in IDHR procedures before being allowed to access a third-party mediator without any power to enforce decisions. This falls far short of our demand for a fair, neutral, enforceable grievance procedure to protect graduate workers from harassment. It also completely fails to address power-based harassment and bullying, for which they currently lack a clear formal procedure at all. They even refused to agree to protections for important categories of discrimination, such as parental status or caste, or to move on related equity issues like menstrual product accessibility.

  We know from the success of other graduate unions on this issue that this is a fight that we can win. However, it’s clear that MIT has still not truly heard our calls for justice and meaningful recourse against harassment, discrimination, and bullying. We must prepare to come together as a union and show MIT that their inadequate, unjust processes are no longer acceptable. 

  Though we are deeply concerned by MIT’s lack of meaningful progress on the need for real recourse for harassment, discrimination and bullying, we have been able to make significant progress on several other areas of our contract. In particular, we reached agreement with MIT that Health and Safety protections must extend to a wider range of hazardous working conditions, including work with eye-damaging high-powered lasers. This also applies to those dealing with novel or previously undocumented hazards, so that no one is left in an unsafe work situation simply because there is not a preexisting policy on how to resolve it. This is especially important because graduate workers often develop novel processes and chemicals, and should not have to wait for policy to catch up before they can report a safety issue. We also won major improvements to the process by which injured graduate workers apply for worker’s compensation. In addition to these gains, we are close to agreement with MIT on multiple articles, including guaranteeing that graduate workers will have advance notice of their appointments, with clearly outlined responsibilities and work requirements.

  With the strides that we have made toward resolutions on many of our noneconomic proposals, we look forward to bringing our economic proposals to the table in the near future. In these proposals, we’re making major improvements to graduate workers’ quality of life. We’ll need a strong show of solidarity to win on these issues. 

  Sign up to join the Contract Action Team (CAT) to get updates on our next steps. Let’s show MIT that we care about these issues and we’re ready to fight for them!

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU BC

12/16/2022

• TL;DR

  Year In Review

  • In April, MIT graduate workers voted overwhelmingly to form our union, the MIT GSU (UE Local 256)

  • We have met MIT at the bargaining table 9 times, negotiating directly on the issues that matter most to our membership

  • The union has taken action with a rally, 3 town halls, 4 marches, and more than 200 testimonials, leading to major progress on issues like Health & Safety.

  • We have reached a tentative agreement on 5 articles.

  Bargaining Session this past Friday

  • MIT was forced to respond on international worker rights due to the collective strength of the 120+ testimonies you provided about CPT/OPT, burdensome fees, ISO delays, and remote work appointments.

  • MIT’s response on this issue still came with lots of excuses and attempted to shift from guaranteed changes in a contract towards “periodic discussions.” We are here not to discuss endlessly, but to demand real change, and will continue fighting for these rights! 

  • Grad workers have overwhelmingly voted to ratify our economic proposals. We have 8 bargaining dates scheduled from late January 2023 through the end of March.

  Dear fellow graduate workers,

  2022 has truly been a historic year for our union. We saw that for the first time in the history of MIT, the graduate worker population has come together in solidarity because they have real issues that have been unaddressed by the current structures and practices of the institution. 

  At the beginning of the year, our union existed in spirit, supported by card campaigns, phonebanking, vote yes petitions and above all else the voices of our fellow graduate workers. In April, 75% of MIT’s 3,823 eligible graduate workers cast ballots with an overwhelming 66% in favor of forming UE Local 256, also known as the MIT Graduate Student Union. During the months that followed, we came together to reshape our union from winning an election to winning a contract! We elected department organizers and formed a contract action team to mobilize everyone in our membership and work together for a strong contract. To represent the union and bring the voices of our membership to the table, the union also elected a Bargaining Committee (BC) with representatives across departments. Once elected, the BC, CAT and general union body worked together to research, draft, revise and ratify a complete set of our non-economic proposals to empower and improve the lives of graduate workers!

  On September 12 we held the contract kick-off rally to kick off our first bargaining session on September 19. Since then, we have met with the MIT administration at the table 9 times, to negotiate and work towards a strong contract that codifies rights and benefits for graduate workers. We made significant progress, negotiating tentative agreements for 5 articles (Appointment Security, Appointment Posting, Training, Agreement, and Severability). We are also close to tentative agreements on four articles (Appointment Notification, Professional Rights, Recognition, Bargaining Unit Information) and have made tangible progress on Grievance Procedure, Health and Safety, and Workload. For a full breakdown of proposals exchanged, including those in our most recent session, visit our bargaining tracking sheet (link here).

  Throughout bargaining, it has been membership voices and collective actions that have driven the most progress at the table. Over the past four months the Union has held one rally, three town halls, and four marches addressing Harassment and Discrimination, Health and Safety, and International Student Rights. These actions forced MIT to deliver serious responses and move on many key issues.

  Looking forward to 2023 we are on track to win a contract that improves the graduate worker experience for our membership, improving their lives and creating real, tangible change!

  Bargaining Session Update

  Last week the MIT GSU ratified our set of economic proposals, culminating in our first full draft of a contract. We thank everyone for participating in the drafting, feedback and revising of all the economic and non-economic proposals that led to this landmark in our union’s first contract. 

  MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) and MIT administration met again Friday December 16 for negotiations over our non-economic proposals. This time, Vice Chancellor Ian Waitz presented MIT’s position on international workers’ rights, responding primarily to the problems raised in the 120+ testimonies from our membership on the artificial hardships that international workers face due to shortcomings from MIT’s current system. Despite acknowledging MIT’s need for improvement here on many aspects, they still delivered a sub-par counterproposal. MIT rejected concrete policy changes and protections proposed by MIT GSU and instead suggested having “periodic discussions...to address issues of mutual concern regarding international student employees” with no commitment to real change. This would effectively stall any progress with a wall of bureaucracy, all while maintaining the inequitable quality of life for 40% of our bargaining unit. We are not here to discuss endlessly, but to demand real change, and will continue fighting for these rights in 2023.

  In the coming year, we have 8 sessions scheduled starting the end of January through March. During this time we will continue our fight to win worker’s rights through the end of non-economic proposals and into the recently ratified economic articles.

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU BC

12/08/2022

• TL;DR

  • As a result of our collective action, MIT had a real response to our Health and Safety article

  • We reiterated our demands regarding international workers’ rights in a presentation bolstered by the outpouring of testimony on inequitable conditions from our international colleagues

  • Our march against harassment, discrimination, and bullying has increased pressure on MIT to develop a serious response

  Dear fellow graduate workers,

  The MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) and the MIT administration met again yesterday for negotiations over our non-economic proposals. Due to both the outpouring of support at our Town Hall for Health and Safety, and the damning testimonies that we presented to the administration on 11/17, we saw real movement from MIT today in their response to the Health and Safety article. This highlights how powerful our united efforts are at obtaining concrete change at the Institute level. 

  We also delivered a counterproposal on international worker rights, emphasizing the gravity of critical issues to our membership such as unhindered access to CPT/OPT, ISO staffing/guidance, and remote work accommodations for graduate workers who are stranded outside the United States. Your voices were the heart of our presentation. We read over 120 testimonials from international graduate workers highlighting the difficulties and inequities that international grad workers face. Your testimonies enabled us to stand firm in demanding equitable treatment, full CPT/OPT rights to take internships, timely and accurate services and guidance from ISO, and elimination of the immense financial burdens from immigration fees. We expect a full response from MIT at our next session addressing these serious problems.

  On Wednesday, MIT graduate workers marched for protections against harassment, discrimination, and bullying, and the message to MIT was clear: They must address their broken system. When prompted for a response on these articles, MIT indicated that they were still having several internal discussions and could not provide a full response at the present time. Graduate worker action and demands have placed significant pressure on the administration to deliver a meaningful response. Through continued collective action, we can fight together to win real recourse against harassment! This will be an ongoing fight, and we will all need to keep dialing up the collective pressure on MIT to stop dragging their feet. 

  As we go into our last bargaining session of the year next Friday (December 16), we are also looking to achieve tentative agreements on some key issues as we prepare to bargain over economic proposals. Look out for an email this weekend about ratifying the economic proposals, and be sure to cast your vote!

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU BC

12/01/2022

• TL;DR

  • We signed tentative agreements on Appointment Security, ensuring funding for the entirety of an appointment, and Training. 

  • We presented on the urgent need for an empowering grievance procedure to fight harassment, discrimination, and bullying.

  • MIT continues to drag their feet, responding with many excuses and no solutions for the failures of their IDHR process. But we have seen the power of our collective action!

  • Join our march on Wednesday, December 7 at 11:45am in Lobby 7 to show MIT that we demand REAL RECOURSE NOW to end harassment, discrimination, and bullying in academia! RSVP here.

  Dear fellow graduate workers,
  
  The MIT GSU Bargaining Committee (BC) and the MIT administration met yesterday for the 7th time to continue negotiations over our non-economic proposals. In this session, we presented to MIT IDHR (Institute Discrimination and Harassment Response Office) on the pervasiveness of harassment, discrimination, and bullying on our campus, the gross shortcomings of the existing processes provided to graduate workers by MIT, and the necessity and urgency of a grievance procedure that would ensure real recourse.

  We cited MIT’s own survey data, which indicates that 47% of graduate women, 25% of graduate men, and 62% of transgender, queer, or non-binary graduate workers have experienced at least one type of harassing behavior since entering MIT. Graduate workers are also 2.5x more likely than undergraduates to not report incidents of harassment out of fear of negative academic, social, or professional consequences, since in a large fraction of these cases, the perpetrator was an advisor or instructor. Graduate workers lack faith in the existing process because of its lack of expediency, failure to protect against retaliation, and inability to actually hold perpetrators accountable.

  The response from IDHR was essentially a defense of their existing process, claiming that delays and shortcomings are due to legal constraints and other factors outside their control. A grievance procedure is a tried and true process which empowers workers to get real recourse for harassment, discrimination, and bullying in a timely manner. We have seen the effectiveness of grievance procedures at other universities, and we are committed to securing this for graduate workers at MIT.

  The committee was also able to secure two tentative agreements. The appointment security article guarantees workers funding in the case that funding unexpectedly falls through, and the training article guarantees adequate training to safely perform research (e.g., learning how to operate equipment and machinery in the lab).

  MIT had stated in earlier bargaining sessions that certain subjects of our proposals, including academic discipline and discharge, were not mandatory subjects of bargaining and that they would not discuss these at the bargaining table. However, in response to our union’s collective voice and actions of our union against unfair and unjust discharges and discipline, we were able to move MIT to offer a “memorandum of agreement”, a legally binding commitment to ensure a centralized appeals process to empower graduate workers to contest unfair academic sanctions that also affect their work status. We are reviewing this proposal carefully as we plan our next steps. 

  This highlights how powerful our voice is when we stand united and demand change. But the fight continues. Join us in demanding MIT to stop dragging their feet on real recourse against harassment, discrimination, and bullying by joining your coworkers for a march on Wednesday, December 7 at 11:45am in Lobby 7! RSVP here. When we fight, we win!

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU BC

11/17/2022 & 11/18/2022

• TL;DR

  • The Town Halls and Actions put pressure on MIT at the table on Health and Safety and International Workers’ Rights.

  • We will continue to use this momentum to push for protections against harassment, discrimination, and bullying. 

  • We secured a centralized website for grad workers to find open RA and TA positions (Appointment Posting).

  • Upcoming bargaining session dates: December 1, 8, and 15

  Dear fellow graduate workers,

  Your participation in town halls, marches, and actions this week were instrumental in changing the tone during this week’s bargaining sessions. The MIT GSU and the MIT administration met November 17 and 18 to continue bargaining over our non-economic proposals, and MIT was clearly under immense pressure to act. On November 17, the momentum from our health and safety townhall and march was transferred to the bargaining table when we read over 100 testimonies from our membership on their experiences with health hazards and incidents at MIT. Your testimonies forced the administration to take health and safety seriously and admit that “we see this every other day,” “we are aware of many of these incidents,” and “things slip through the cracks” with the current system. We are expecting a full response from MIT that will empower graduate workers to obtain the proper equipment, training, and resources they need to ensure a safe work environment. 

  Similarly, because of your presence at the international workers’ rights town hall, the administration came to the discussion of international workers’ rights on the defensive. This time around, the administration felt the need to justify maintaining the status quo with their current, inadequate system. They were unable to give details about their timeline for implementing real, concrete change. Their lack of planning and execution around this issue indicates that we need to keep pushing for these rights in our contract to ensure a strong set of protections for our international colleagues.

  In addition to the discussions on health and safety and international workers’ rights, there were some key wins for the union during these sessions. We now have a tentative agreement on having a centralized website to help graduate workers find open RA and TA positions (Appointment Posting). This is a big deal, particularly for our colleagues in the EECS, HST, and IDSS programs. With this centralized resource, graduate workers no longer have to scramble during rotations and rely on word of mouth communication or existing relationships with PIs and professors in order to find open positions in labs. We also have made significant progress toward an agreement on our Appointment Notification and Appointment Security articles.

  What comes next? We plan on using the support you showed at the “Real Recourse Now!” town hall at our next bargaining session on December 1 to show why we need to have a strong, neutral grievance procedure to protect us against harassment, discrimination, and bullying. This week has shown the most successful bargaining tactic isn’t what is said at the table, it is collective membership action. Your participation and engagement  are absolutely critical for us to make meaningful progress at the bargaining table. Overwhelming graduate worker support across the Institute is crucial in order to win a strong contract that addresses our longstanding needs. 

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU BC

10/26/2022 & 10/27/2022

• TL;DR

  • Despite continued discussion and impassioned arguments from bargaining committee members, MIT has failed to move on key non-economic issues

  • We are coming together as graduate workers for town hall discussions to share our experiences and why we need this change. To win at the negotiating table, we need all grad workers paying attention and joining us in action. Please join us to send a message to MIT admin!

    • Real Recourse NOW!: Ending discrimination, harassment, and bullying in academia - Mon, 11/14 at 5:30PM

    • We Are Not Disposable!: Health and safety on the job - Tues, 11/15 at 5:30PM

    • No Fees! No Threats! Full Rights!: International worker rights and equal opportunity - Wed, 11/16 at 5:30PM

  • RSVP today! 

  • Follow the Bargaining Tracking Sheet to stay up-to-date on proposal language!

  Dear fellow graduate workers,
  
  Last week we (MIT GSU) and the MIT administration met twice to continue bargaining over our non-economic proposals. Although we prepared and delivered impassioned, detailed presentations on the conditions facing graduate workers, we ultimately were disappointed by MIT's choice, at the moment, to ignore and deny our membership’s voiced concerns. On some of our most important issues, MIT either ignored or outright rejected our continued effort to work toward practical, meaningful contract proposals. 

  But MIT doesn’t have the final say–we do! It is imperative that we as a union show MIT that we want to see concrete change on key topics. We can move mountains when we organize together! Please join us for our meetings and actions on harassment and discrimination, international worker equity, and health and safety in two weeks as we push MIT to finally make progress on these urgent issues.

  Summary of Bargaining Sessions

  Members of the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee and the MIT administration met first on Wednesday, October 26 at 10:30 AM. All of the MIT administration bargaining team were present, but there were no faculty observers for this session. The session started with MIT GSU presenting our current proposals to MIT. Our lead spokesperson, Carl Rosen, offered summaries of our rationales on proposals in which we are holding firm on our positions, as well as those on which we have already found common ground with MIT. We signed tentative agreements (meaning that both sides have agreed on the wording and intent in the article) on the Agreement and Severability articles, respectively. These articles establish the premises of our agreement to form a contract with MIT. You can track the progress of each article, and see TAs as we bring MIT to agreement on articles, in the Bargaining Tracker at the end of this report.
  
  On several issues, Bargaining Committee members offered in-depth explanations of the problems grad workers face and the solutions we are advocating for. On the topic of discipline and discharge from appointments for academic reasons, Thejas Wesley (BC Member, ChemE) highlighted four case studies from our members, along with statistics, that clarify the need for protections against the use of arbitrary academic standards as a way to fire students from labs or programs. 

  We also reaffirmed the importance of a strong grievance procedure for harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Reca Sarfati (BC Member, Econ) provided an extensive overview of the shortfalls of current MIT procedures in such cases. These include the difficulty in maintaining neutrality in an entirely MIT-run process, including frequent external pressure on workers to drop cases or accept minimally effective resolutions. She also noted a chilling effect for workers coming forward under the current procedure for dealing with sexual harassment and assault, which can be alleviated by the greater security and support of a worker-run union process with neutral arbitration
  
  On the topic of international worker rights, Sihan Chen (BC Member, BCS) presented the need for equity between domestic and international graduate workers. He argued that the ISO, as it currently operates, is woefully under-resourced and understaffed (in some cases with over 900 Graduate Workers per ISO worker!) to address the concerns of international workers through timely responses and up-to-date immigration information. Furthermore, he argued that immigration-related fees place an inequitable burden on our international colleagues, and that gaining full access to CPT opportunities is a top concern for international graduate workers.
  
  For professional and IP rights, Daniel Magley (BC Member, HST) argued for the need to establish a procedure for graduate workers to advocate for inventorship on patents and authorship credit on papers. He noted that it is in MIT’s interests, as well as those of graduate workers, that graduate workers are appropriately credited for inventions and publications. He noted that the current lack of procedures for resolving IP and authorship issues prevent workers from being fairly credited and do not offer a clear way to resolve disputes. Finally, the research being done to secure patents and publications are overtly a condition of employment for RAs, and therefore cannot be relegated to a purely academic issue as MIT has previously claimed.
  
  During this time, the administration asked questions regarding the topics above, primarily on the intended scope of certain sections of articles. These questions were primarily to clarify the intent of the union on why these topics needed to be in the contract. Both sides agreed that more involved discussion on the above topics would be presented in the next day’s session.
  
  The administration then presented their response to one article, Health and Safety. They said they would be holding on unpaid leaves until our future discussion on economic proposals, which will also include paid leaves. After asking some clarifying questions on their Health and Safety response, we ended the session at 4:30 PM.
  
  Our next session started the following day (Thursday, October 27) at 10:50 AM. As before, members of the MIT GSU BC and MIT Administration were both present. Professor Lily Tsai (Political Science, SHASS) and Professor Caesar McDowell (Department of Urban Studies and Planning, SA+P) were present as faculty observers, in their role as members of the administration’sFaculty Advisory Group. The MIT administration started with a partial response to our proposals from the previous day. Despite the discussion regarding academic discipline and discharge the day before, they still failed to include any mention of academic discipline and discharge in their response. After some clarifying questions on the new set of responses, both sides continued the discussion from the previous day’s session. The administration continued to push back on IP rights and academic credit, as well as restroom equity (i.e., creating gender-affirming restrooms, including gender-neutral ones, in all buildings). MIT also held firm that categories like caste, family status, and parental status should not qualify for specific protection against harassment, discrimination, and bullying. This stance is in clear opposition to our members’ own experiences that discrimination against these groups is in no way a solved problem at the Institute.
  
  In the afternoon session, the Institute presented two more responses, specifically on Inclusive Work Environment and Appointment Posting. After clarifying questions on these two responses, the session was adjourned.
  
  We were able to secure some major wins from MIT during these two sessions. Some were centered around giving MIT GSU the space to operate successfully. Others gave graduate workers more time to initially file a grievance, the ability to have a union representative present when interviewed about events or behavior that may lead to future discipline, and, for those who are lactating, access to chilled storage for breast milk.
  
  Unfortunately, these two bargaining sessions have also revealed MIT administration’s current approach on bargaining over key issues for our membership: that they will listen with interest to our struggles and issues with the status quo, but refuse to move on the relevant proposals in which we are advocating forreal, concrete change. We are holding firm that grad workers need a comprehensive, enforceable contract:

  • Empowering graduate workers with a strong, neutral grievance procedure that would allow graduate workers to report instances of harassment, discrimination, and bullying without fear of retribution.

  • Eliminating unfair fees for international graduate workers, and providing visa/immigration support and access to CPT training comparable to other institutions that would establish equitable quality of life and professional opportunities between international and domestic graduate workers.

  • Guaranteeing graduate workers the right to a safe laboratory space and providing them with the resources and staffing needed to report and fix unsafe conditions.

  • Instituting clear, consistent standards for academic performance within a graduate program, so graduate workers can no longer be unfairly fired on the basis of arbitrary, unannounced, or unequally applied academic requirements. 

  • Establishing a procedure for determining inventorship for intellectual property and receiving authorship status (using established CRediT guidelines) such that graduate workers will get proper credit for their intellectual contributions to research.

  For harassment, discrimination, and bullying; health and safety; and protections against unjust dismissal from our programs on the basis of academics, MIT largely rejected the language from our bargaining proposals. In addition, MIT’s new proposal on health and safety is woefully inadequate for the hazards and risks we face on campus, particularly in wet labs. The responses so far suggest that MIT does not have an understanding of the reality of graduate worker experience on campus. For other issues above, we have yet to hear a response. However, from the discussion at the bargaining table it appears that MIT is also reluctant to move on these topics. It is clear that the administration does not yet feel the urgency of these key areas of concern for our membership.
  
  With our next bargaining session coming up on November 16, now is the best time for us to show how important these issues are for us, and that we want to see real movement on these proposals.
  
  To this end, we want to invite every grad worker to attend our town halls and accompanying actions on three of these issues: 

  • Real Recourse NOW!: Ending discrimination, harassment, and bullying in academia - Mon, 11/14 at 5:30PM

  • We Are Not Disposable!: Health and safety on the job - Tues, 11/15 at 5:30PM

  • No Fees! No Threats! Full Rights!: International worker rights and equal opportunity - Wed, 11/16 at 5:30PM

  We strongly encourage you to attend any or all of these meetings to take a stand. You’ll have a chance to share how these issues impact you, discuss what it would mean to make real, meaningful progress on these issues, and take public action to directly show MIT why we need a contract that will improve our working conditions. Please RSVP here. 
  
  When we all come together, we have the power and leverage to win what we need from MIT. Every one of you is important to this effort: only with a strong show of support for these issues can we press MIT to truly make progress. 
   

  Yours in solidarity, 
  MIT GSU BC 
   

  Appendices
  Bargaining Tracking Sheet
  Attendance: 
  Oct. 26

  MIT GSU Roster
  24 Member Bargaining Committee
  
  Lead Negotiator:

  • Carl Rosen (UE General President)

  Observers: 

  • Valentina Luketa

  • Maddie Dery

  • Jeff Rosenberg

  • Royce Brown

  MIT Admin Roster
  8 Member Bargaining Team:

  • Ian Waitz, Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education

  • Lauren Pouchak, Director of Special Projects, Office of the Vice Chancellor

  • Heather Williams, Assistant Provost for Strategic Projects

  • Ahsan Ali, Manager of Labor Relations

  • Ellen McClintock, Assistant Manager of Labor Relations

  • Anthony Moriello, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

  • Genevieve Aguilar, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.

  • Nick DiGiovanni, outside labor counsel and lead negotiator, Morgan, Brown & Joy

  Administration Observer:

  • Mariucy Tejada, Senior Human Resources Assistant

  Oct. 27
  MIT GSU Roster
  24 Member Bargaining Committee

  Lead Negotiator:

  • Carl Rosen (UE General President)

  Observers: 

  • Valentina Luketa

  • Maddie Dery

  • Jeff Rosenberg

  • Royce Brown

  MIT Admin Roster
  A subset of the 8 Member Bargaining Team:

  • Ian Waitz, Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education

  • Ahsan Ali, Manager of Labor Relations

  • Ellen McClintock, Assistant Manager of Labor Relations

  • Genevieve Aguilar, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.

  • Nick DiGiovanni, outside labor counsel and lead negotiator, Morgan, Brown & Joy

  Administration Observer:

  • Mariucy Tejada, Senior Human Resources Assistant

  Faculty Observers:

  • Lily Tsai, Professor of Political Science, Chair of the Faculty, and member of the Faculty Advisory group

  • Caesar McDowell, Professor of the Practice of Civic Design at MIT, Associate Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Associate Director of the MIT Center for Constructive Communication, Chair of the Master in City Planning Program within DUSP, and member of of the Faculty Advisory group

10/13/2022

• TL;DR

  • MIT gave their responses to most of our non-economic contract proposals

  • We still need to fight for essential issues, including discrimination protections, a safe work environment, and international workers’ rights, but together we can win!

  • MIT has canceled the 10/21 bargaining session, but we have added 12/1, 12/8, and 12/16 bargaining dates

  • Come to the department meetings in the next two weeks to discuss updates on negotiations

  • Help win a strong contract by joining our contract action team!

  Dear Fellow Grad Workers,

  Together, we have made progress in bargaining toward our first contract! On Thursday, October 13, our bargaining committee sat down with the MIT administration for the second time, where we heard their responses to our non-economic contract proposals.

  We have together created a movement that has compelled the MIT administration to give us a serious response to our non-economic proposals. MIT is negotiating on most of our proposals, creating a foundation for us to work toward real change on these issues. However, MIT is dragging its feet on several cornerstone contract elements that we have proposed, including a neutral grievance procedure for harassment and discrimination, full rights for our international graduate workers, and our professional rights as graduate workers.

  Despite this, we left the session with renewed optimism for the future we are fighting for. We aren’t limited anymore by what the MIT administration thinks is most convenient for them. Through our union, we have won our voice! And MIT must come to terms with our priorities. We can win all of the things we are fighting for if we come together and demonstrate that we support, need, and deserve a future that removes barriers to our research and respects us for the researchers and teachers that we are. We are fighting for: 

  • An equitable MIT that is free of harassment, discrimination, and bullying! A neutral grievance procedure will provide real recourse to empower grad workers and create a safe working environment.

  • Full rights and equal opportunities for our international graduate workers! 40% of us are international and deserve the right to pursue professional development through internships under Curricular Practical Training, and a removal of logistical and financial barriers due to immigration status. 

  • Professional rights as researchers and teachers! We are entitled to safe and adequate laboratories to carry out our research, to not be unjustly forced out of our programs, and to fair accreditation on publications and patents we create.

  This is our vision, and our path forward is clear. Although MIT canceled one of our previously agreed upon sessions, we left the meeting having won three other bargaining dates (see below), and are hopeful that we can come to agreement with MIT on many if not all of our non-economic proposals this semester. But to achieve this, it will be up to all of us to continue to fight for this future. Come to your department meeting to discuss further, and help win a strong contract by joining our contract action team!

  Onward in solidarity!

  Your MIT GSU-UE Bargaining Committee

  
  Future Bargaining Dates

  • October 21 (canceled by MIT)

  • October 26th

  • October 27th

  • November 17th

  • November 18th

  • December 1 (we won this)

  • December 8 (we won this)

  • December 16 (we won this)

  
  Detailed Report on Our October 13 Bargaining Session

  Our second bargaining session started at 10 AM on Thursday, October 13, 2022. Both sides started off the session by introducing members who were not present before. The MIT GSU bargaining committee (BC) introduced three BC members who were not able to make the first bargaining session, and the administration introduced Lianne Shields, Director of Employee and Labor Relations from MIT HR, and Professor Brad Olsen, Alexander and I. Michael Kasser (1960) Professor and Graduate Admissions Co-Chair of the Chemical Engineering Department, as observers for the session. 

  The administration then introduced their response to our set of initial proposals. MIT’s lead spokesperson noted that some proposals have not been fully discussed on their side yet, but that they had put together responses on most of our proposals. Our BC members each received paper copies of their counter proposals, and listened to verbal remarks from the MIT committee on the rationale behind each change from the text of the GSU’s original proposals.

  After this, the MIT bargaining committee informed us of their intent to cancel the previously agreed upon October 21 bargaining date and their refusal to schedule any additional November dates, citing scheduling conflicts for their bargaining team. This cancellation is of enormous concern to us, as it represents a lost opportunity to move forward on negotiations and a deeply problematic precedent of arbitrary cancellation of planned dates.

  After a caucus by BC members to discuss any initial questions about their response, we asked the administration points of clarification on their proposals, specifically resolving whether certain sections and language were rejected or are still under review. After receiving these clarifications, we expressed our disappointment with the cancellation of the next bargaining session, as both our committee and the membership have invested significantly in preparing for the October 21 session, and asked for confirmation that the health and safety article would have a response by the next bargaining session on October 26. Finally, we proposed to schedule bargaining dates for the month of December, to at least ensure that bargaining can continue to progress through the end of the year.

  The administration said they would not commit to having a response to the health and safety article during that timeline. They agreed to additional bargaining dates of December 1, December 8, and December 16. They also asked when our economic proposals would be ready. We stated that it is our intention to negotiate and agree as much as possible on the non-economic proposals first before we introduce the economic proposals, to which MIT concurred. We noted that we hope that we would finish negotiating the non-economic proposals in December. We concluded with our appreciation of the effort they put in to respond to our proposals and stated that we will be taking their responses into consideration before the next bargaining session. 

  Takeaways from MIT’s Counterproposals
  MIT provided us with responses on a majority of topics, with the main exceptions being leaves of absence and health and safety, which are both still under review. This is a major step forward, as establishing the initial positions on both sides will now allow us to actively bargain toward resolutions on our non-economic issues. In many cases where they did not initially accept a proposal, they actively invited us to share more about the importance of the topic for graduate workers or to clarify the need for a particular version of a proposal and indicated that they plan to work with us toward viable solutions to the problems grad workers face. We look forward to bringing them the data and testimonials from thousands of grad workers that will show the urgent need for these provisions.

  We were also very pleased to hear that MIT shares our goal to promptly reach agreement on a contract. The sooner we have the contract in place, the sooner conditions will improve for all of our lives and research. There were also some areas in which we already won proposals that will improve and codify our rights as workers, including mandating that supervisors be available to meet with workers, enforcing reasonable working hours, and improving the transparency of our funding sources. It is only the beginning of bargaining, and we look forward to negotiating on all proposals in the coming weeks. 

  However, many of MIT’s initial responses do not yet fulfill the urgent needs that motivated all of us to fight for a contract. A common theme was MIT’s definition of a broad set of topics, ranging from internship opportunities, to authorship credits, to unjust discharge from one’s degree program, as purely “academic” and therefore not part of bargaining. Many of these topics are inextricably linked to our needs and rights as workers and cannot be cleanly separated out from our working conditions. In other cases, MIT proposed to simply defer a topic to MIT’s already existing policy, without any changes or improvements. We appreciate MIT’s willingness to codify policies such as disability accommodation within our contract so that they can be legally protected and enforceable. Unfortunately, as graduate workers have made clear, there are many cases–including disability accommodations–where existing MIT policies fail to fully address our needs.

  Below we highlight some topics that we know are important to grad workers on which we found MIT’s proposed responses particularly concerning.

  In their initial response, MIT proposed removing the majority of our article that would create protections for international graduate workers. One major example is the proposal on “Practical Training” (aka CPT and OPT), the federal policy allowing international graduate workers to do internships or outside work. The ability to take these opportunities is vital for graduate workers’ professional development and success. Arbitrary, inconsistent restrictions on CPT and OPT imposed by MIT departments limit international workers’ right to gain skills vital to their research and prevent them from accessing the same opportunities as their domestic colleagues. However, MIT has taken the stance that these work opportunities are an academic issue only and that they are therefore reluctant to establish a clear, equitable policy for CPT and OPT access. They have also not yet agreed to improve remote work opportunities for international students stuck abroad or to cover the visa and other immigration-related fees that international graduate workers must pay in order to work or to develop their careers in the US. These are all issues that we know create major inequities between international and domestic workers, and we plan to make clear to MIT the importance of addressing these issues in a contract.

  This reluctance to act on international student issues was part of a larger pattern, in which many of MIT’s revisions restricted or ignored proposals on the professional rights of graduate workers. We disagree fundamentally, for example, with their argument that we do not need contractual protection of intellectual property and authorship rights, again on grounds that these are academic issues unrelated to employment. Both patent credits and paper authorship directly reflect our work contributions to MIT and to our labs’ and advisors’ research. Similarly, they pushed back against our proposal to protect graduate workers from unfair disciplinary action or dismissal on academic-related grounds. We obviously don’t wish to prevent MIT, or individual departments, from setting their own academic standards for how programs are run and students are evaluated. However, ensuring that these standards are fairly and correctly applied is essential to preserving our right to work without arbitrary or retaliatory dismissals.

  MIT’s response to our non-discrimination proposals was similarly disappointing. Notably, they argued that our grievance procedure, the main tool by which contracts are enforceable and grad students receive union protection, should not apply to any issue of discrimination, bullying, or harassment, including sexual harassment and assault. Additionally, MIT wishes to remove any commitment to promptness with respect to student disability accommodations, restricting the contract to codifying existing MIT accommodation policy. Given that our membership reports extensive delays in MIT’s existing disability accommodation process, we feel that their current proposal will not be adequate to create a working environment that is actually equitable for disabled workers.

  Finally, we were concerned that MIT neither brought responses to our health and safety article nor were able to offer a timeline for when they might have such a response. We appreciate that MIT is carefully composing their proposals on health and safety in consultation with EHS and other MIT experts, and we understand that such research can take time. At the same time, we know that many graduate workers feel that it is especially urgent for us to develop a clear, comprehensive, and enforceable set of policies protecting our safety at work. It is, sadly, not uncommon for graduate workers to be unnecessarily exposed to health hazards, provided with insufficient safety equipment, or even hospitalized due to unsafe working environments. When we next meet with MIT, we hope that they will be prepared to offer their response on how we can make MIT a safer workplace through our contract.

  We as the BC plan on responding to these counterproposals in line with the views that you, our membership, have expressed through our bargaining survey, department meetings and town halls, and individual conversations. We will continue to meet with MIT to discuss and bargain over these proposals. We are simultaneously working tirelessly to prepare proposals on economic issues like wages and benefits, affordable housing, and health insurance. 

  In conclusion, although we are pleased to see responses put forth by MIT for many of the proposals we introduced in the first bargaining session, we are disappointed that MIT is dragging their feet on key protections in international worker rights, professional rights, non-discrimination in particular, as well as health and safety. Nonetheless, we are, above all, optimistic that we can win all of the things we are fighting for if we come together and demonstrate that we support, need, and deserve a future that removes barriers to our research and respects us for the researchers and teachers that we are. 

  What do our next steps look like? 

  Our strength in negotiating these topics and winning a strong contract is our membership. We need to show the administration that these issues are important to the MIT grad worker population and that we are willing to fight for them. Attend your department meeting to discuss MIT’s response and how we can all participate to win a strong contract, and join our contract action team (CAT) today!

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU Bargaining Committee

  
  Appendices

  MIT GSU Roster: 

  24-Member Bargaining Committee

  Head Speaker:

  • Carl Rosen (UE General President)

  Observers:

  • Valentina Luketa

  • Maddie Dery

  • Jeff Rosenberg

  • Royce Brown

  MIT Admin Roster

  8 Member Bargaining Team:

  • Ian Waitz, Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education

  • Lauren Pouchak, Director of Special Projects, Office of the Vice Chancellor

  • Heather Williams, Assistant Provost for Strategic Projects

  • Ahsan Ali, Manager of Labor Relations

  • Ellen McClintock, Assistant Manager of Labor Relations

  • Anthony Moriello, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

  • Eve Aguilar, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.

  • Nick DiGiovanni, outside labor counsel and lead negotiator, Morgan, Brown & Joy

  Administration Observer:

  • Lianne Shields, Director of Employee and Labor Relations from MIT HR

  Faculty Observers: 

  • Lily Tsai, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Faculty

  • Professor Brad Olsen, Alexander and I. Michael Kasser (1960) Professor and Graduate Admissions Co-Chair of the Chemical Engineering Department

9/19/2022

• TL;DR: 

  • We officially presented our non-economic proposals to MIT

  • Our next six confirmed bargaining dates are 10/13, 10/21, 10/26, 10/27, 11/17, and 11/18

  • Whether it’s 30 minutes or 30 seconds a week, please consider joining the CAT (Contract Action Team)! This is our active organizing group, meeting weekly to work toward our contract, and is the best way to get involved in bargaining.

  Fellow graduate workers,

  Happy start of the Fall semester!

  We, as your representatives on the MIT GSU Bargaining Committee, wanted to begin by thanking all of you for your help and support this past month. Our graduate worker union has been 5 years in the making, and this month in particular was a month of empowerment by and for graduate workers. All together, we created, ratified, rallied for, and now delivered our non-economic contract proposals to MIT. Together, we kicked off bargaining––we are finally here, and we most definitely earned our seat at the table!

  This wouldn’t have been possible without all of you putting in the hard work to make your voices heard: by showing up to departmental organizing meetings, providing feedback on and voting to ratify our proposals, and turning out to our Contract Kickoff Rally. You showed MIT that you care about securing a contract that ensures a fair workplace with equal opportunities, adequate support, financial security, and a union equipped to protect our rights. Your support is what set us up for a successful start to bargaining!

  First Bargaining Session'

  Monday morning at 10 am, the MIT GSU bargaining committee walked into MIT’s HR building to sit across the table from the MIT administration. No faculty members were participating in MIT’s bargaining committee aside from Vice Chancellor Waitz, although Chair of the Faculty Lily Tsai and EECS Professor Duane Boning were present as observers.

  We began with an empowering opening statement from our chief spokesperson Carl Rosen (UE General President). Carl spoke about how we are here to address issues voiced by our members and that we expect negotiations should go smoothly, as many of the articles and topics are in line with MIT’s mission/statement. Carl closed with a powerful call to action: 

  “Let none of us on either side of the table forget we are here today because an overwhelming majority of graduate workers at MIT voted to have a union, voting so because they have real issues that they feel have been unaddressed by the current structures and practices of the institution. It is our duty to make sure those issues are now addressed in the most productive way possible.”

  We then received a brief opening statement from MIT’s outside labor counsel. The statement gave polite and courteous recognition of graduate workers and our union, stating that they will work diligently with us to build on the progress that MIT has already made addressing these issues we present. With that, we began presenting our non-economic proposals, providing context for why each section was written. For each proposal, a bargaining committee member explained what the proposal contains, and why it matters for the well-being and research success of graduate workers.

  At the end, we broke for both sides to caucus, meaning we moved to separate rooms to discuss the meeting so far and plan next steps. Once we reconvened, MIT’s bargaining committee stated they had no questions about our proposals at this time, and requested time to review the proposals before responding. We expect them to use this time to prepare responses and counter-proposals to most or all of our articles by the next time we meet, so that we can start the important work of negotiating.

  We then worked to establish when we would next sit down at the table to negotiate with MIT. Initially, the MIT admin wished to schedule only the next meeting, Thursday 10/13. We felt that scheduling only a single meeting left it far too likely that the process would drag out unacceptably, or that future meetings would be scheduled on notice too short to bring every graduate worker in on our plans for bargaining.

  After additional discussion, we agreed on six meeting dates in the next two months: 10/13, 10/21, 10/26, 10/27, 11/17, and 11/18. Additionally, there are two other dates (11/7 and 11/8) in that time frame for which we expect to hear back from MIT by the next bargaining session. 

  What’s Next

  There is a lot of work ahead of us. While we’re pleased that the MIT administration was willing to schedule several bargaining sessions prior to Thanksgiving, we will have to make significant progress at each meeting in order to come to a workable agreement in the time frame that all of us urgently need.

  At the same time, we need to be ready to quickly communicate about the bargaining progress, and keep each of our members up to date about our plans throughout this process. To keep this process as transparent, democratic, and effective as possible, we need every graduate worker to be informed and ready to advocate to MIT on behalf of the issues they care about.

  For that to happen, we need everyone to be involved in fighting for our contract. This can mean reading our updates and telling an organizer what interested you about them, and what you want to see the Bargaining Committee push for. It can mean attending your department organizing meetings or joining the Contract Action Team, so you can hear more about our efforts and contribute your ideas and priorities to our contract fight. It can mean talking to your coworkers, to hear what they care about in a contract and help them make their voices heard. And, of course, it can mean coming out to a rally, going on social media, or giving testimonials on your experiences to bring light to an issue that you want MIT to know we need in the contract.

  Our power as the Bargaining Committee comes from all of you. We depend on the entire membership to give input, help us publicize the importance of our contract proposals, and show MIT that we will put in the hard work to win a strong contract that protects your ability to work and study here.

  None of the progress we’ve made to this point could have happened without thousands of graduate workers coming together to share our struggles and advocate for our rights.

  Thank you for all your work so far, and we can’t wait to keep fighting together to WIN OUR CONTRACT!

  In solidarity,

  MIT GSU Bargaining Committee
  
  

  Appendix

  Non-Economic Articles Presented

  • Agreement – AJ Miller

  • Recognition – Sophie Coppieters ‘t Wallant

  • Union Security and Check-Off – Belinda Li

  • Bargaining Unit Information – Ayelet Carmeli

  • Grievance Procedure – JS Tan

  • Discipline and Discharge – Ajay Brahmakshatriya

  • Union Rights – Reca Sarfati

  • Non-Discrimination – Rahul Jayaraman

  • Inclusive Work Environment – Remi Akindele

  • International Employee Rights – Sihan Chen

  • Health and Safety – Thejas Wesley

  • Appointment Duties/Scope of Work – Nishad Gothoskar

  • Appointment Posting – Christian Cmehil-Warn

  • Appointment Notification and Reappointment – Anna Waldman-Brown

  • Appointment Security – Angela Lee

  • Professional Rights – Daniel Magley

  • Training/Professional Development – Zoe de Beurs

  • Workload – AJ Miller

  • Leaves of Absence/Unpaid Time Off – Leah Ariel Wallach

  • Severability – Arrow Minster

  Bargaining Session Date

  Monday, September 19 2022 at 10am

  MIT GSU Roster

  24-Member Bargaining Committee

  Head Speaker:

  • Carl Rosen (UE General President)

  Observers:

  • Valentina Luketa

  • Maddie Dery

  • Jeff Rosenberg

  • Royce Brown

  MIT Admin Roster

  8 Member Bargaining Committee:

  • Ian Waitz, Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education

  • Lauren Pouchak, Director of Special Projects, Office of the Vice Chancellor

  • Heather Williams, Assistant Provost for Strategic Projects

  • Ahsan Ali, Manager of Labor Relations

  • Ellen McClintock, Assistant Manager of Labor Relations

  • Anthony Moriello, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

  • Eve Aguilar, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.

  • Nick DiGiovanni, outside labor counsel and lead negotiator, Morgan, Brown & Joy

  Administration Observer:

  • Mark DiVincenzo, MIT Vice President and General Counsel

  Faculty Observers: 

  • Lily Tsai, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Faculty

  • Duane Boning, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Chair of the Committee on Graduate Programs