We began our ninth bargaining session with the NYU administration by passing them our petition with thirty pages of signatures. A majority of contract faculty in our bargaining unit are standing together for a contract that protects our academic freedom — and our numbers are only growing.
Watch: Colleagues across NYU explain why academic freedom matters
Demonstrating your broad support is the single most effective way that we on the Bargaining Committee can persuade the administration’s team to agree to fair terms. To build on the slow progress we’ve made and win the contract we deserve, we will all need to find new ways to remind NYU leadership that we are united in our demands.
RSVP to observe an upcoming bargaining session
Some Progress
We presented eight counterproposals; the administration brought four. We came closer to agreement on key provisions about the ways we will service andenforce our contract, respond to rapidly developing technologies, protect our health and safety, and ensure that personnel files are managed securely and transparently. The administration’s team made the modest step of agreeing to memorialize the status quo practice of sponsoring international contract facultyfor permanent residency on an exceptional basis, and made movement towards establishing a fair and timely process for resolving most contract violations.
Review all proposals and counterproposals on our CFU Bargaining Tracker.
Some Distance
However, we are still far from agreement on international faculty rights or policies for grievance and arbitration. We are also holding firm on the need for due process in disciplinary procedures, safeguards against generative AI, and increased data privacy protections (a third of our Bargaining Committee and many more colleagues had their data exposed in the March 22 breach; it seemed like an opportune moment). The administration, meanwhile, rejected outright our intellectual property proposal, insisted on further exclusions to our bargaining unit, and said yesterday that they will not consider a grievance process for non-reappointment or denial of promotion that includes review by a committee of faculty peers.
One Sticking Point
This last refusal is especially troubling, given our repeated attempts to come to terms with the administration about an interim policy for contract faculty grievances. Our election agreement establishes that the administration cannot make unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of our employment while we’re bargaining. Last fall, they notified us that they were implementing a new policy barring contract faculty from serving on grievance committees. For months, we offered a variety of solutions to address their stated concerns. They rejected all our proposals out of hand, re-proposing their initial interim proposaleach time.
Because a strong majority of contract faculty organized to push the administration to voluntarily recognize our union outside the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), we resolve disputes differently than some other campus unions. While the principles of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) govern our negotiations, our relationship with the administration does not rely on the NLRA and is not overseen by the NLRB. Any disputes that arise will be decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator.
In bargaining yesterday, after the administration’s team indicated that they would not agree to continue to permit contract faculty members to serve on grievance committees under any circumstances, we informed them that we will initiate an arbitration claim that they have failed to bargain in good faith by unilaterally discontinuing the status quo grievance procedure, failing to bargain in good faith over an interim procedure, and refusing to process the grievance of one of our colleagues in the School of Professional Studies. Learn more about unilateral changes here, and contact cfu.uaw@gmail.com if questions or concerns come up in your school or department.
There is still an opportunity for the administration to avoid an arbitration hearing by working with us creatively to find a compromise that preserves contract faculty members’ roles on grievance committees. If the administration is unwilling to do this, however, we intend to make a strong case before the arbitrator.
Legal appeals are a necessary mechanism, but they won’t win us the contract we need and deserve. Neither will the best arguments your elected representatives make at the bargaining table. To win, we need everyone to get involved and turn out for bargaining.
In solidarity,
CFU-UAW Bargaining Committee
Richard Dorritie (Rory Meyers College of Nursing)
Elisabeth Fay (Expository Writing Program, Arts & Science)
Robin Harvey (Teaching and Learning, Steinhardt)
Thomas Hill (Center for Global Affairs, SPS)
Peter Li (General Engineering, Tandon)
Benedetta Piantella (Technology, Culture, and Society, Tandon)
Jacob Remes (Gallatin School of Individualized Study)
Chris Chan Roberson (Undergraduate Film & TV, Tisch)
Jamie Root (French Literature, Thought and Culture, Arts & Science)
Fanny Shum (Mathematics, Courant Institute)
Heidi White (Liberal Studies)