We hope everyone had a restful holiday season and a good break. Please read on for an update from our last bargaining session of 2024, on December 19th, our tenth session with the Einstein administration. We were joined by a number of postdocs who came to watch the session—you can click here to RSVP to observe bargaining.
During the session, Einstein’s bargaining team responded to our proposals on Union Rights and Access, Union Security, and Workspace and Materials articles from previous meetings. In these articles, Einstein made a number of regressive moves intended to go back on improvements both sides agreed to months ago. We know Einstein is willing to make these improvements since they agreed to do so previously, and we have no intention of allowing them to move backward on these key issues.
Einstein also introduced new proposals on the following topics: Housing, International Employees, Individual Development Plans, Management Rights, No Strike/No Lockout, and Research Integrity. We are continuing to review these proposals.
Additionally, we reviewed and discussed Einstein’s prior proposals on Appointment Security, Appointments and Reappointments, Intellectual Property, and Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment, going through each section in detail. Below are some key updates from these discussions:
Appointment Security:
The administration outright rejected our proposal that would guarantee our pay, benefits, and other employment terms for the duration of our appointments. We emphasized that postdocs deserve stability in their appointments, free from unnecessary or arbitrary changes by Einstein. We will continue to fight for these protections, which are standard for other unionized colleagues, including at Mount Sinai.
Appointments and Reappointments:
Einstein rejected most of our proposed language. We stressed that the postdoc phase is a critical and vulnerable period in a scientist’s career, requiring stability in the appointment and reappointment processes.
When we questioned why Einstein insisted on sole discretion to set employment durations—including potentially shorter than 12 months, in response to our proposal for a two-year minimum appointment—they cited funding concerns. We countered that Einstein must be transparent about its financial capacity and hire postdocs only when financially prepared, and that short and unpredictable appointment terms are a major source of stress—especially for international scholars—that detracts from our ability to do quality research. Our demand for comprehensive information and essential resources to be included in our offer letters was also dismissed by the Einstein administration, which claimed that this information would be “unnecessary.”
The administration rejected the entirety of our proposal and introduced their own language, parts of which would go below the current status quo at Einstein. Additionally, their proposal would deny postdocs the ability to enforce these provisions by excluding them from the grievance and arbitration procedure. Einstein also rejected our provision that PIs need to disclose their conflicts of interest with Postdoctoral Fellows, simply stating that “it is not relevant to the postdocs.”
Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment:
In their counterproposal, Einstein rejected our entire proposal, including detailed definitions and examples of discrimination and harassment, expedited timelines to resolve harassment-related issues, and immediate and supportive measures that would ensure a survivor of harassment does not have to stay in an unsafe situation. Einstein provided very little explanation of the reasoning behind these rejections, so we will continue to discuss them. Einstein also expressed the desire to only offer legally required protections, again without much explanation as to why. Their opposition to stronger protections against harassment, which would be on par with what other unionized postdocs in NYC have won, was particularly disappointing given that Einstein prides itself on being an equitable and inclusive workplace.
You can read a summary of the proposals discussed during our session below and access the full text of these proposals using our online bargaining tracker.
We are deeply disappointed by Einstein’s continued rejection of our proposals and backtracking on progress made in previous sessions. Moreover, their attempts to weaken our future collective bargaining agreement by introducing language that renders key protections non-grievable undermines the improvements postdocs have been demanding and is unacceptable. Throughout the session, our Bargaining Committee made it clear that we are committed to securing a fair contract that meaningfully raises standards for postdocs at Einstein.
As always, we encourage postdocs to reach out with any questions, concerns, or feedback.
In Solidarity,
Michael Papanicolaou
Cell Biology
ERU-UAW Bargaining Committee