Graduate Student Union Negotiations

The parties met for their ninth bargaining session and the Union began by presenting proposals concerning Titles and Classifications, Discipline and Dismissal, and Grievance/Arbitration.  The University asked if the Union had rejected the University’s proposal on Grievance/Arbitration and the Union indicated that its language was a counterproposal.  After brief discussion about the Union’s proposals, the University presented counterproposals on Employment Records, Labor Management Committee and Severability.  After some discussion, the Union requested a caucus to further discuss the University counters.  The Union reconvened negotiations after forty-five minutes and the remaining fifteen minutes were spent discussing the University counterproposals.  The University also again proposed language increasing graduate student stipends and hourly rates, which it had advanced in negotiations in January and March with no response from the Union.  The University also offered a counterproposal on Recognition, and warned the Union that any insistence on Recognition language the Union had proposed was unlawful.  The University also again offered a proposal on Academic and Management Rights, reflecting its proposal from January and March that the Union had ignored. 

July 16, 2024

The parties met for their tenth bargaining session and the Union began by presenting proposals concerning Paid Leaves, Family Benefits, Workload and Parking/Transit, with counterproposals on Training and Travel.  The Union proposals demanded, by way of example, unlimited sick and personal time, paid leave to mourn the death of a pet, the right to bring children to work (class and labs), free parking and allocation of 20% of all parking spaces for graduate students, unlimited travel expenses and paid time off for any conferences students wish to attend, and the right to arbitrate workloads (including academic workloads) students consider to be unreasonable.  The University brought counterproposals on Union Rights, Bargaining Unit Information and Union Security, and proposed language on No Strike No Lockout.  The University included language addressing a range of union concerns in its counters, and rejected the Union’s demand on several issues, including demands for a 2-hour mandatory union orientation for new PhD students at the start of the fall and spring semesters, a 45-minute union presentation at all PhD orientations, a 24-hour accessible union office with free union parking, and mandatory union fees for graduate students.  The parties discussed issues raised in their respective proposals and the bargaining meeting extended beyond the allotted time to allow for additional discussion and questions.  At the end of the meeting, the University demanded that the Union bring forward a comprehensive economic proposal, rather than raising issues in a piecemeal fashion.  The Union responded that it was unable to do so because it was waiting for information from the University on healthcare utilization.  Upon review of Union information requests following negotiations, the University wrote to the Union to clarify that, in fact, the Union had never requested healthcare utilization information, and to renew its call for no further delays in presentation of the Union’s economic proposals. 

August 2, 2024

The parties met for their eleventh bargaining session and the Union presented proposals on Retirement Benefits, Tax Assistance stipend, Relocation stipend, Childcare stipend, Vacations, Tuition and Fees, Past Practice, Artificial Intelligence, and a counterproposal on Job Postings.  The Union’s demands included retirement benefits for all graduate students, an annual $600 tax preparation stipend, a $6,000 relocation stipend, an annual $5,000 childcare stipend ($8,500 for 2 children and another $5,000 per child with a “socioemotional or physical disability”), and 21 days of annual paid vacation for all graduate students regardless of hours worked.  When asked how it determined that graduate students should get 21 days of paid vacation, the Union team responded that number seemed reasonable.  The University expressed difficulty understanding how graduate students who are expected to perform no more than 20 hours/week as a TA or RA (essentially part-time), would be entitled to three weeks of paid vacation, particularly where 21 days of vacation was unusual for most full-time jobs under 5 years of service.  The Union responded that PhDs are full-time employees because they spend many hours studying.  When asked about the basis for the $6,000 relocation stipend, the Union responded that moving to attend graduate school is expensive, as is rent.  When asked if this was a rent subsidy proposal, the Union responded that it was not, and that they intended to present a proposal related to rent subsidies at some point.  The University also raised a concern about the Union’s Workload proposal, which as written allowed graduate students to arbitrate whether academic assignments are unreasonable.  The University expressed that there was likely a path to agreement on some core workload concepts, but the idea that students can arbitrate academic assignments is unacceptable.  The University also presented counterproposals on Classifications (TA, RA, Hourly), Grievance and Arbitration, Discipline and Discharge, Training and Professional Development and Labor Management Committee.   

August 26, 2024

The parties met for their twelfth bargaining session and the Union presented what it said were most of its economic proposals, with one or two more yet to be provided.  The sudden reveal of 9 new Union proposals as graduate students were returning for fall semester was in sharp contrast to the first eleven bargaining sessions where the Union presented only 3.2 new proposals per meeting. 

Several of the Union’s proposals, while new, represented counters to proposals presented by the University seven months ago in January, including Compensation, Healthcare, Health and Safety and Anti-Discrimination and Harassment.  The Union demands included a minimum $60,000 annual stipend and minimum hourly rate of $58, health, dental and vision coverage for students, domestic partners and children with subsidized co-pays and no premiums, arbitration of Title IX claims, and Union oversight of health and safety issues for graduate students.  The Union admitted that its $60,000 stipend number was based upon an MIT wage calculator that produced cost of living estimates for full-time employees who work 40 hours per week in the Boston area.  The University pointed out that stipended PhDs are limited to 20 hours of work per week, which meant the minimum Northeastern PhD stipend of $40,000 was far above the $30,000 MIT calculator equivalent for 20 hours, and worth $82,000 annually based on a 40-hour week.  The Union also proposed contract provisions concerning Financial Emergencies, Graduate Housing, Food Security, and Accommodations, which included exempting unionized graduate students from the need to provide medical information in support of any accommodation request. 

The University attempted to engage the Union with questions to understand the different proposals and the Union repeatedly stated it preferred to defer questions for another discussion to allow it enough time to finish its presentations.  After more than two hours, the parties took a 15-minute caucus break, after which the University presented counterproposals on Vacation and Personal Time, Sick Leave, Parking and Transit, No Past Practice and Holidays. The University’s Holiday proposal again offered all the University calendar holidays as paid for stipended graduate students (currently 11 days plus the winter break), and disagreed that unionized graduate students should also receive paid holidays for, among other things, their birthday, May Day, Cesar Chavez Day, and the lunar new year of their choice.

The University engaged the Union in a discussion about the Union’s proposal that students be able to arbitrate academic workloads, which is based in the Union’s insistence that academics (e.g. dissertation research) counts as “work” under the contract.  The University explained that the Union’s definition of “work” is at odds with state and federal labor and employment law, as well as the NLRB’s decision that ordered an election at Northeastern. After some discussion, the University asked the Union to further consider its definition of “work” to allow the parties a path toward reaching agreement on graduate student workload.

September 19, 2024

The parties met for their thirteenth negotiation session, and it was a productive discussion that resulted in the first tentative agreement on the issue of Severability.  The Union brought forth the remainder of its contract proposals, the first of which (Union Stewards and Officers) demanded that graduate students serving Union officers receive a three-year extension of their PhD funding commitment from the University to support their Union role.  The proposal also called for the full funding (with tuition waiver) of three PhD students to perform union activities instead of teaching or research during the year.  The Union proposal on Professional and Academic Freedom outlined the expectation that graduate student academic freedom includes the discretion over the contents and presentation of their teaching or research, as well as “inalienable rights” to speak or write free from institutional censorship or discipline.  The University presented counterproposals, including language addressing bereavement, medical, military and jury/court appearance leave, as well as language providing leave for international students to address visa renewal related to family travel or other approved reasons.  The University also offered counterproposals on Health and Safety, Workspace and Materials as well as Labor Management Committee.  The Union presented counterproposals on Employment Records and Appointments and Reappointments.

October 11, 2024

The parties met for a fourteenth negotiation session that included a tentative agreement on the issue of Labor Management Committee.  The Union presented a counterproposal on Union Access that continued to demand the University provide detailed information about students, including country of birth/origin, gender, and race, along with a range of other information not found in similar graduate union contract provisions.  The proposal also demanded that graduate students attend a mandatory 45-minute Union orientation meeting each semester, and that all college or department orientations set aside at least 20 minutes for a Union presentation.  The Union then presented a counterproposal on Training that required, among other things, the University bargain with the Union each semester over all required graduate student training.  The parties also discussed the Union’s proposal on Assignments that demanded colleges adopt TA and RA appointment procedures that incorporate a list of criteria faculty must use in making appointments, as well as mandatory meetings of faculty, department chairs and students to discuss all TA and RA appointment procedures prior to implementation or change.  The parties talked about the Union’s Job Postings proposal and had a productive discussion on the subject of Workload.  The University presented counterproposals on Grievance and Arbitration, as well as Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment, and forwarded a counterproposal on Employment Records following the meeting.  The University offered to meet with the Union in a small group off-the-record setting to brainstorm issues between bargaining sessions and advance the dialogue. 

October 30, 2024

The parties met for a fifteenth negotiation session that was a combination of PhD student testimony and a discussion of University counterproposals.  The meeting began with the Union presenting testimony of a PhD student about difficulties with his advisor, which the Union said supported why the University should adopt its Harassment/Discrimination and Grievance/Arbitration proposals.  After 45 minutes of hearing from the student, the University pointed out that this student could have filed a grievance if the parties had a contract in place, reminding the Union that the University’s proposed January 2025 contract would have supported a grievance from this student. 

The parties then turned to University counterproposals on Work Travel, Training, Job Postings and Workload.  The University explained that it was unwilling to accept Union demands that all PhD travel requests be funded, whether or not those requests were related to work.  The University instead proposed language specific to work travel, which included prepayment for all up-front work travel expenses, such as hotel/airfare, with timely reimbursement of all other authorized travel expenses.  The University next reviewed its Training counterproposal that rejected the Union’s demand that the University adopt all training requested by the Union and graduate students.  The University reiterated that it should retain the ability to determine work-related training, and that the Union could always suggest particular trainings for consideration.  The parties then discussed the University’s counterproposal on Job Postings and the Union’s demand that colleges be required to post all TA/RA openings each semester, and that PhD students be able to apply for any positions.  The University explained that TA/RA assignments were determined by colleges and departments, consistent with student funding and admission terms, and that PhD students were always free to inquire about different opportunities, but the Union contract should not supplant college assignment processes.  The University agreed to create a website where colleges could post open positions.  The University also reviewed its counterproposal on Workloads, and its proposed compromise language that included a model for how the parties could assess “work” within the context of research to allow for arbitration of unreasonable workloads.  The Union’s current Workload proposal demands the right to arbitrate academic workloads, which the University explained was not acceptable.  The meeting ended with the Union accepting the University’s proposed bargaining schedule for the remainder of the semester.

November 18, 2024

The parties’ sixteenth negotiation session began with a review of federal immigration law to dispel Union misconceptions about student visas.  In response to Union claims during the prior negotiation of the University delaying admission of Iranian students, the University explained why it took longer due to immigration-related deferrals for Iranian students to obtain approval to attend Northeastern.  The Union then attempted to claim that departments were refusing to grant deferrals for Iranian students.  When asked to provide examples, the Union had none.  The University next reviewed the Union’s proposal on International Worker Rights, almost none of which touches on matters concerning terms and conditions of student work.  The University explained that collective bargaining is designed to address terms and conditions of employment, not immigration matters that are heavily regulated by federal law.  The University also pointed out that some of the Union’s proposed language, such as the demand that the University prohibit the entry of federal immigration officials on campus, was actually contrary to federal law.  The Union disagreed that the contract should be limited to terms and conditions of employment, and insisted that any union contract must reflect “inalienable rights” of international students.  The Union then took the next hour of the meeting to present testimony of several graduate students about workspace materials, safety, and accommodations.  The Union began by reasserting demands that unionized graduate students be allowed to bypass all University accommodation procedures, and be excused from the requirement to submit medical documentation to support accommodation requests.  The Union also repeated demands related to its Workspace and Materials proposal, such as the requirement that the University provide whatever PPE or related equipment the Union deems necessary for student work, the prohibition of workspace hoteling without student consent, and the demand that the University grant all student remote work requests.  The University reiterated that exempting unionized graduate students from workplace accommodations procedures, including providing medical documentation to support an accommodation request, was unacceptable. 

The session ended with a discussion about the University’s grievance/arbitration counterproposal and the University’s economic package proposal.  The University’s proposal included PhD stipend increases to a $43,000 minimum or 2.5% increase, whichever is greater, $18 minimum hourly rate, dental benefits for PhD students on a 12-month appointment, dependent health care coverage for children (up through age 17) of PhD students on a 12-month appointment, student EAP benefits for all bargaining unit members that includes access to legal advice, and health coverage for funded PhD students.   The University offered to continue meeting with the Union in between scheduled bargaining meetings for off-the-record working sessions on particular issues.

December 9, 2024


The parties met for a seventeenth negotiation session that included a Union focus on international student issues.  This was the first meeting since November 18^th because the Union did not request any off-the-record working sessions in between bargaining dates.  The first hour of the December 9^th session was comprised of statements by several international graduate students who said they experienced various challenges related to immigration matters, including visa expiration or having a single-entry visa that made travel to international conferences difficult.  The Union acknowledged that visa issues did not preclude international students from studying, even with an expired visa, but that it restricted traveling abroad.  Two students specifically discussed the challenge of not being able to visit family because they had a single-entry visa or a one-year visa that expired.  The University then pointed out that the University had already proposed “visa renewal leave” to enable international students with an expired visa to travel and visit family, which included needed time to renew their visa.  The Union responded that the University should also allow international students to take open-ended leave at any time during the year to renew visas so they can travel to international conferences, and that all related visa processing fees and travel for visa renewals should be paid by the University.  One student said that OGS had not provided her with paperwork quickly enough. 

The second hour of negotiations was spent discussing various counterproposals by the parties.  The Union presented a counterproposal on Workload that rejected the parties’ discussion in prior sessions of how to view “work” in the context of research.  The Union reversed prior statements that accepted the concept that not everything students do related to research is “work,” and rejected the University’s proposed compromise on workload that defined what constitutes work for Research Assistants.  The Union instead reintroduced its original language that demanded the right of students to arbitrate academic workloads.  The University offered a counterproposal on Workspace and Materials that rejected Union demands that the Union be allowed to determine when students get PPE, and what PPE they are entitled to receive, as well as its demand that graduate students be allowed to work remotely whenever they wish, and that the University waive all requirements that students submit medical documentation to support a medical accommodation request.  The University offered counterproposals on Health and Safety, as well as Union Rights, that responded to several Union requests. 


December 20, 2024


The parties met for an eighteenth negotiation session and discussed a range of topics.  The University began by informing that Union that it was rejecting the Union’s counterproposal on Workload which demanded the right to arbitrate academic workloads.  The University pointed out that the Union’s counterproposal was a repudiation of the parties’ discussions about the issue and that it had no intention of moving from its proposed compromise language.  The University suggested that the Union go back and discuss the issue further.  The Union then brought forward counterproposals on Appointment Security, Holidays, Training, Intellectual Property and Employment Records.  The University again raised the issue that in many instances proposed Union language lacked clarity that could result in needless litigation.  The University pointed to the Union’s demand that the University give “good faith consideration” to any training programs proposed by the Union for graduate students, explaining that “good faith consideration” is ambiguous, and asked the Union to be more clear.  The Union renewed and expanded its Intellectual Property proposal that graduate students retain “sole and exclusive” property rights in anything they create or make as a TA or RA.  The University had explained in earlier meetings that the proposal was contrary to intellectual property law.  The Union’s renewed demand included new language that outlined the right of graduate students to make all student intellectual property open source, as they determine.  The Union’s revised Holidays proposal reflected a step back from demanding graduate student birthdays as a paid holiday, but substituted a floating paid holiday “of the new year of their choice” each year.  The Union’s demand for Cesar Chavez Day and May Day as paid holidays remained unchanged, as did the demand that graduate students be excused from any work when the University closes, such as for a snow emergency.  The Union then asked if the University could secure credit cards for graduate students to use for travel, which the University expressed it was not inclined to do.

The University then presented a further counterproposal on Leaves of Absence, which included a provision allowing parental leave to be taken by both PhD parents when both are Northeastern students, along with counters on Professional Development and International Graduate Student Worker Rights.  The University repeated its explanation that the Union’s International Student Worker Rights proposal was unrelated to terms and conditions of employment, and that Union contract provisions should be focused on terms and conditions of work and not subjects such as immigration-related matters that are governed by federal immigration law.  The University again pointed out that some of the Union’s proposed language was contrary to federal law, such as the demand that the University ban federal immigration officials from campus.  The Union acknowledged that its proposals should be consistent with federal law, and recommended that the University read Project 2025, and disclose plans to address mass federal raids on campus in the upcoming semester.  The University negotiator replied that we do not yet know what the federal government will do with immigration generally, let alone how that may relate to international students, and that it was premature to speculate about mass federal raids on campus. 

The parties closed negotiations by sharing refreshments provided by the University.  New bargaining dates for January and February were proposed by the University prior to the December 20^th meeting.