1/9/2026 Holidays, Non-Discrimination and Harassment, Grievance procedures, and Benefits
On Friday, January 9, we met with the University’s team at The Interchurch Center. We exchanged article proposals on Holidays, Non-Discrimination and Harassment, Grievance procedures, and Benefits. We also discussed the status of the Health Fund. We reached some agreements with the University, but many more substantive issues remain outstanding.
You can see all article proposals by either party linked at our proposal tracker. You can also review live notes from Friday’s session here.
See below for a detailed breakdown of the discussion. Read till the end for testimonies about how the session went by several of our unit members in attendance!
Holidays
We were hoping this article would be uncontroversial, as our goals were simply to bring Morningside and CUMC to parity, as well as winning a reasonable increase in paid time off for our workers. Unfortunately, the University was extremely resistant to adding any paid days off and claimed our demands were “unusual,” while providing no justification for their resistance.
Specifically,
Both parties agreed to add Juneteenth as a holiday;
We proposed 2 paid personal days per term (fall, spring, summer), while the University insisted on 1;
The University refused to make May Day a paid holiday;
The University refused to give CUMC workers the day before Election Day off to bring them to parity with Morningside workers;
The University is refusing to give workers President’s Day off, a federal holiday.
We are disappointed that the University flatly refused our demands and we hope the University will come back with a reasonable counterproposal at the next session.
Non-Discrimination and Harassment (NDH)
SWC presented a proposal regarding NDH with the following main objectives:
More extensive disability rights and timely fulfillment of accommodations;
Codifying protection for student workers of all genders and sexual identities;
Codifying protection against power-based harassment and bullying;
Adding caregiver status as a protected category, as consistent with NYS law.
Improving the process for seeking redress at the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE): more expedient access to arbitration and the right to union representation at proceedings.
The University did not provide a formal response but agreed to review our proposal. University representatives asked clarifying questions, signaled disagreement, but didn’t make a hard objection. Again, we hope they will return with a counterproposal and, if they have objections, express them as specific and actionable concerns.
Grievance and Arbitration
We presented our counterproposal on the Grievance and Arbitration article and the two bargaining teams had a discussion on the following:
The University refused to accept our proposal for an optional Step 1b in the grievance process, which gives the opportunity for an informal resolution with a mediator.
The University accepted an optional Step 4, which allows formal mediation before escalating to arbitration, but pushed back on allowing the aggrieved worker to make their decision to trigger this step unilaterally, citing concern of hypothetical bad-faith actions by unit members. The University also pushed back on giving grievants the option of using private mediators.
The University refused to accept SWC’s cost sharing proposal for arbitration, which requires that the losing party in each arbitration case to cover the full cost of the proceedings. The status quo forces SWC to share the cost of arbitrations despite having never lost one.
We appreciated the time for discussion and questions and answers. When the University responds with a counterproposal, we hope to continue working towards a mutually agreeable article.
Benefits
The University passed us their counterproposal to the Benefits article. However, they did not mark changes against our proposal and instead wrote the proposal as if they were responding to their own proposal that they emailed to the Union on May 9, 2025. The University merely passed back the language that was in our previous contract, with small increases to the health fund and the dependent support fund. Specifically:
The University refused to consider offering student workers choice between student and employee health insurance, citing logistical concerns. We requested that they specify these concerns in writing.
The University refused to consider full coverage of dental and vision insurance.
The University has not moved from their original proposals of $425,000 for the student worker healthcare fund, and $225,000 for the dependent healthcare fund. This falls far short of our proposal of a $1,250,000 combined fund, which would cover our unit’s full need, as demonstrated by usage data of the funds in the past 4 years.
In the only example of substantive movement on this topic, the University, after initially proposing no annual increases, has now proposed a 3% annual increase to the funds. But this is less than our current contract and less than our current proposal of 5% or equal to inflation.
The University refused to consider an emergency salary advance program, Disability Equity Fund, or school-specific support funds.
We pressed the University at the table about why they have entirely rejected each of our proposals. The University’s bargaining team insisted that they provide plenty of support for student workers, and that these are not subjects of collective bargaining. When confronted with the fact that the health fund only has enough money to reimburse about 50% of our workers’ needs, the University denied that there was any problem and chose, once again, to ignore the real needs of student workers sitting right in front of them.
Childcare
Again, the University refused to mark changes against our proposal that we passed last session, and instead marked changes against their proposal from May 2025. While our article included childcare subsidies appropriately matched to the cost of childcare in New York City and parental leave policies that would allow student workers to successfully complete their programs, Columbia’s counter scratched all of our proposals and merely made small increases in the childcare subsidies and reimbursements.
The University proposed a maximum reimbursement of $5,750 per year for childcare and up to $6,000 for adoption assistance.
However, this falls far short of our demand of $25,000 per child under the age of six not yet attending kindergarten, and $16,000 per child over the age of six or already attending kindergarten.
The University refused to address our provision regarding additional compensation for single parents.
Based on research by our Parental Rights working group, $46,856 is required beyond a living wage for a single individual without children, on average, to cover costs associated with raising one child under the age of six per year. Columbia’s own childcare centers charge between $22,284 and $47,000 per year.
When pressed at the table, Columbia’s team called their own proposal appropriate in light of “hard times for Columbia” and told us they were offering us plenty. They also appeared to be unaware that they had omitted all of our language on parental leave, leaving us unsure that their team had actually read our proposal.
Health Fund Status
The University told us at our last bargaining session on November 24th that they would not provide the health fund before a new contract was inked. On December 8th, however, they changed their position and announced to the entire university that they would, in fact, provide it. This was a significant win for the Union and a demonstration of what we can gain by showing our labor power and holding the line. At the same time, it is deeply concerning that Columbia chose to unilaterally implement this change. This is a violation of the NLRA and undermines the bargaining process between SWC and Columbia.
At the bargaining session, we asked the University to sign a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to recognize the implementation of the health fund as a mutual agreement between SWC and CU. The University affirmed that they will provide both rounds of the health fund in the 2025-26 academic year, but refused to sign the MOA we drafted and passed across the table. Signing the agreement would commit the university to paying out the health fund and continuing to negotiate on this as an employee benefit.
We’re excited that we have the health fund available (apply here!). At the same time, it is up to us to show the University that they can’t simply go over our heads by keeping the pressure up and holding the line for our proposals.
Article redlining
We once again raised the issue of redlining protocol with the University. Redlining refers to the practice of using red text and underlines to signal a party’s desired changes in a proposal made by the opposing team. Following this protocol makes clear outstanding disagreements so both sides can move towards a mutually agreeable solution. The University, however, has consistently refused to respond to SWC’s proposals directly using redlining, and instead has shared amended versions of its own proposals.
This practice causes confusion at the table regarding article language and slows down negotiations. However, it is not only a logistical issue. By refusing to engage with our specific proposals, the University is showing its reluctance to engage in a bilateral bargaining process. Rather than working together to reach a mutually agreeable contract, the University prefers to simply offer us whatever it chooses, while their bargaining team calls our proposals unreasonable.
We find this disrespectful. Just last month the University told us at the table that instating the health fund was not going to happen before announcing in a University-wide email that it was. We have power as a union and we are making progress, even if the University refuses to acknowledge it. We ask the University again to engage in good faith with the bargaining process, respond to our articles with redlines and counterproposals, and provide specific information and evidence for their objections.
Members’ responses to the bargaining session
Although many of our workers are out of town, around 30 in-person observers attended the session in addition to our Bargaining Committee. Here is what some of them have to say about today’s negotiations:
“It was good to see the union bargaining team push back against the university’s attempts to make changes unilaterally and fight for stronger health and parental articles. Definitely still feels like we’re in the process of getting all the articles on the table, but the university bargaining team’s tendency to dismiss major parts of our proposals … has been frustrating to watch.” – PhD worker in the humanities
“[Columbia] simply returned the old version of their [healthcare] proposal which didn’t include [choice of health insurance plan for student workers] at all, which really upset me, because this is super important for my health needs and my friends … They said that our student health is comprehensive. It’s not. I know this firsthand.” – PhD worker in the natural sciences
In the upcoming bargaining on January 23, we plan to introduce our articles on Compensation and Working Conditions. We will also continue to press the University to respond to our proposal on Non-Citizen Student Worker Protection. Remember to RSVP to attend the session. We look forward to continuing negotiations and fighting for the contract we deserve.