The rockefeller university

As negotiations between the Union and the University have now been ongoing for over a year, we want to take this opportunity to share our thoughts on bargaining.

Our goal from the beginning has been to achieve a fair and equitable agreement with the Union that reflects the important work performed by the University’s Postdocs and Research Associates while preserving the unique research environment of Rockefeller University –– the reason that we, and we imagine many of you, came here to work here in the first place.

Progress to Date
The University has approached bargaining with a sincere commitment to reaching a fair and mutually beneficial agreement. Our desire is to ensure that Rockefeller remains a collaborative, research-driven institution that provides Postdocs and Research Associates with exemplary training and the resources to succeed.  We believe this commitment makes Rockefeller unique among our peer institutions and is essential to our continued success.

To date, tentative agreements (TAs) have been reached on ten articles. The University and the Union also have substantially finalized the language for four other articles. Bargaining has not begun on economic or benefits issues.  The comprehensive list of articles that have been exchanged so far and their current status is attached. The University has responded to each of the Union’s proposals, whereas the University is still waiting on the Union to respond to five Articles that were first proposed in April and May 2025.

Although we are glad the Parties were able to reach tentative agreements on numerous articles, we have found these negotiations time consuming and difficult because of the union’s rigid approach focused on achieving identical or better language as agreements at other institutions – such as Weill-Cornell and Mt. Sinai – often without recognizing that Rockefeller is a fundamentally different, and smaller, institution.

We heard that bargaining for first collective bargaining agreements covering postdocs with this Union often took years, and sometimes resulted in strikes.  For example, Postdocs at Mount Sinai struck for twelve days before reaching a contract, and negotiations between the UAW and Weill Cornell took 19 months.  Negotiations between this Union and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine have been ongoing since September 2024.

We hoped to avoid unnecessarily protracted bargaining here, inviting the Union to share with us problems that we can collaboratively address at the bargaining table.  Instead, we have found that the Union has often refused to provide specific examples of prior issues that their proposals are trying to solve or to tailor their proposals to Rockefeller’s unique environment – here are three examples:

Protecting Moral, Religious or Ethical Objections: Rockefeller has proposed that Postdocs or Research Associates with personal, religious, or other objections to paying union dues or fees should have the option to contribute to a charity instead. This approach has been accepted by other unions—including by the UAW at Caltech. The University believes that this proposal helps protect against “free riders” – all Postdocs or Research Associates must contribute something in exchange for the benefits of union representation – while also protecting your colleagues’ “freedom of conscience” – Postdocs or Research Associates with moral, ethical, religious or other objections can donate to a charity instead of paying the Union.  The UAW often takes positions on political and social issues that go well beyond anything happening within the bargaining unit.   Some Postdocs and Research Associates may disagree with these positions, and the charitable option gracefully accommodates this tension.  But, the Union here has refused to engage with this proposal – and instead proposed that Postdocs and Research Associates who refuse to pay dues or fees should be terminated from Rockefeller employment.

Providing a Fair, Fast and Free Path to Addressing Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Complaints:The Union summarily rejected the University’s proposal, which we believe provides the best option for Postdocs and Research Associates to have a fair, fast and free resolution to any complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation.  Let us be clear – there is no place for discrimination, harassment or retaliation at Rockefeller University, and we are committed to providing Postdocs and Research Associates with the best path to resolving these claims.  As opposed to the Union’s proposal, which would leave Postdocs and Research Associates on their own to pursue claims in court – an often multi-year process with a low chance of success – the University’s proposal gives Postdocs and Research Associates access to mediation and, if that fails, binding arbitration for any claims.

Let us say that again, while the Union hands out leaflets claiming that the University is proposing only mediation to resolve claims, that is false.  If mediation fails, under the University’s proposal you can bring your claims before an arbitrator, typically a former judge, who applies the same legal standards and can issue the same remedies (such as damages) as a judge in court.  The only difference is the forum.  And the forum, in arbitration, is better for everyone involved.  Postdocs and Research Associates will be providedwith a representative and/or attorney by the Union; and the entire process will be paid for by the University and the Union.  The data also backs this up.  While claims in court take years, research indicates arbitration cases on average only take several months to resolve.

Other postdoc and graduate student unions have agreed to this process – including the UAW at Caltech.  It is also contained in dozens of agreements for other industries in New York City. These employers, unions and unit members see it as a benefit to all.  It is the best option to provide a fair, fast, free and confidential process to handle these sensitive claims.

The Union has refused to engage with us on this proposal at all – rejecting it wholesale even though the University has told the Union that we are prepared to discuss proposed modifications.

If you want more information – please review the presentation we made to the Union on this important topic.  We encourage you to learn more about the University’s proposal.

Disclosure of Personal Visa and Citizenship Information: The Union has demanded that the University produce to the Union every two weeks, among other information, a list identifying the race/ethnicity, gender, preferred pronouns, citizenship, and visa status of each Postdoc and Research Associate. The University believes this is sensitive confidential information that many Postdocs and Research Associates may not want widely disseminated, particularly in today’s environment.  The University, therefore, proposed producing this information to the Union subject to a confidentiality agreement.  We viewed this as a “win win.”  The Union gets the information they claim is needed, and the Union and the University – together – take steps to agree to keep the information as confidential as possible.  The Union has so far rejected this compromise.

These examples are indicative of our experience in bargaining with the Union.  We hoped to find common ground, but have been dismayed that the Union has not engaged with our proposals on these issues of mutual concern.  We do not believe these negotiations should be approached from an adversarial perspective.

We are committed to continuing to bargain with the Union in good faith, and hope that the Union’s rigidity will evolve into a collaborative process representative of the best of Rockefeller.

To learn more about the status of negotiations, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions website.

With best wishes,