WAC Grievance

A note from the chapter officers on this important issue for Graduate Assistants:

We want to report to you about an important contractual grievance, now in the works, which may affect all Graduate Assistants. There is important information in this email, but if you’re very busy and you are currently a WAC fellow, please prioritize filling out this 3 minute survey.

Fifth-year Writing-Across-the-Curriculum (WAC) Fellows received Graduate Assistant B appointment letters last Spring for service in the 2017-2018 academic year. In the PSC-CUNY contract, the GA-B title, workload is capped at 120 teaching hours or 225 non-teaching hours for the year (225/30 weeks = 7.5 non-teaching hours per week). However, WAC Fellows generally put in 15 hours of work per week. In the Fall, the PSC Graduate Center chapter filed a grievance seeking to reduce the workload of WAC Fellows to 7.5 hours per week since that is the GA-B non-teaching workload.

The Graduate Center administration has responded with what can only be considered threats to 1st – 4th year GAs with Teaching Fellowships. The administration threatens that beginning next year, they will appoint 5th year GAs to the GA-A title (which allows an average of up to 15 hours per week of work, for roughly double the salary), yet they will reduce the stipend component of the fellowship, cancelling out the value of the higher GA-A salary. Moreover, the administration threatens to enforce a contract provision that bars GA-As from working elsewhere in the CUNY system (mainly, teaching additional classes as Adjuncts), which is in no one’s interest. We perceive these threats to be punitive, retaliatory and possibly illegal.

While we pursue contractual and legal channels (which by their nature, may yield uncertain outcomes), we also must bring pressure to bear on CUNY and the GC administration. As a first step,  if you are a current WAC fellow, please take 3 minutes to fill out this survey that will make our grievance stronger, and please don’t hesitate to reply to this email with questions or concerns! We will be in touch soon.

Announcement of Vacancy: Coordinator of Contract Enforcement

The Professional Staff Congress, AFT Local 2334, is a progressive, activist union representing 28,000 faculty and staff at The City University of New York. The PSC is seeking to hire one or more experienced individuals who will increase the union’s effectiveness in enforcing contracts and expanding the reach of academic labor unionism through working with the diverse instructional staff PSC represents. These are professional, unionized positions.

Responsibilities: With some latitude for independent decision-making under the direction of the Director of Contract Enforcement, administers the collective bargaining agreement for the CUNY instructional staff represented by PSC and is responsible for implementation of the policies and procedures of the established grievance process:

  • Investigates, prepares and presents grievances at step one and step two; negotiates settlement agreements with management representatives at CUNY;
  • Works with chapter leadership on contract enforcement and labor-management issues affecting faculty and professional staff and on implementation of strategies for enforcement of complex and cross-campus contractual issues
  • Maintains an effective system of follow up on member inquiries, workplace issues and grievances with staff and member grievance counselors, including digital reporting;
  • Oversees rank and file grievance representatives who respond to member inquiries and in building worksite participation, and educating and organizing around contractual rights and grievances and using electronic databases;
  • Assists with the implementation of grievance counselor training,
  • Researches, analyzes and prepares reports on contract enforcement issues;
  • Other duties as assigned.


  • Demonstrated commitment to progressive trade unionism;
  • 5-10 years’ experience or more as a union grievance representative or union-side labor lawyer and demonstrated ability to interpret and administer collective bargaining agreements; experience in higher education and in negotiating grievance settlement agreements is a plus;
  • Demonstrated experience working with union staff and activists;
  • Demonstrated organizing experience and ability to work in a team environment;
  • Excellent written and verbal communication skills; experience working with databases;
  • Excellent organizational skills and ability to pay attention to details;
  • Experience communicating and working with a diverse constituency;

Education & Experience Requirements:

  • Baccalaureate; more advanced degree in labor and industrial relations or law  is a plus;
  • At least 5-10 years’ experience in higher education or public sector labor relations,
  • Knowledge of standard office computer software;
  • 3 full-time employment references.

Compensation: Competitive salary, based on experience; excellent benefit package


The Professional Staff Congress is an equal opportunity employer.

Women and people of color are strongly encouraged to apply.

Application deadline: March 2, 2018 or until position filled


Send cover letter and resume to:

Barbara Gabriel, Professional Staff Congress

61 Broadway, 15th floor

New York, NY 10006

Telephone: 212-354-1252  Fax: 212-302-7815  e-mail: bgabriel@pscmail.org

Support PSC Member Laurie Rubel Against Right Wing Attacks

Please sign and share the AAUP petition in support of Laurie Rubel!


The Brooklyn College PSC released the following statement:

The BC chapter of the PSC supports Laurie Rubel, Professor of Mathematics Education, who has become the latest “click bait” for the right-wing media’s outrage machine. Dr. Rubel’s recent article in the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education was caricatured and decontextualized by Campus Reform, an online “watchdog” outlet seeking to curb academic freedom. In turn, Fox News, Breitbart, and others set upon Dr. Rubel’s work with inflammatory mischaracterizations. As a result, Dr. Rubel has received dozens of hostile emails daily, including threats of physical and sexual assault, some referencing her religion and gender. Neo-Nazi websites such as Stormfront and Occidental Dissent have attacked her with virulent anti-Semitism. Dr. Rubel is a highly decorated member of the CUNY faculty: a Fulbright Fellow, a Distinguished Fellow at the Graduate Center’s Advanced Research Collaborative, a recipient of Brooklyn College’s Tow Professorship and Excellence in Teaching Award, and a National Science Foundation award. Her academic credentials are beyond reproach. But that is not the point. These outlets are not engaged in challenging the methods or findings of academic research but in manufacturing bits of pseudo-news, coordinated to maximize social media exposure, intimidate professors, and discredit departments and institutions. Such an environment is antithetical to academic research and teaching and must be condemned by the university. Any of us could find our work willfully decontextualized and caricatured to fuel the outrage machine. Yesterday’s communication to School of Education faculty from Provost Tramontano and Dean Bedford was a welcome step. But it was not sufficient. A robust affirmation of academic freedom is one that circulates to the entire College community, is publicly available, and defines a faculty member’s rights more expansively than to publish, free from threat of personal injury, within her academic field in professional venues. We urge the University leadership to issue such a public statement of support for Dr. Rubel and to establish joint faculty-administration task forces on academic freedom on the campuses. Today’s toxic political and media environment demands a constructive collaboration on this matter of shared concern.

James Davis, chapter chair

December 7th EC Meeting Minutes

Minutes from chapter’s Executive Committee Meeting – 12/7/17

  • Next semester membership blitz & chapter organizing plan – 30 min
    • Reflections on SPS & JSchool meetings
    • Set goals, strategies, timeline & delegate tasks
    • “A revolution in data” & data privacy → tabled for next EC
    • See end of this document for further notes on chapter organizing
  • Changes to SPS Governance Plan & our response – 20 min
    • Old SPS governance plan allows for program committees (curriculum & personnel) that never formed b/c they never had enough FT & consortial faculty to do so (adjuncts not allowed to serve) → grievance going to arbitration
    • SPS recently came up w/ new governance plan that abolishes committees & establishes governing council that makes policy for SPS → no peer evaluation for tenure & appointments, less democratic input & voting especially from the majority adjunct faculty
      • + Invalid review process
      • Benefit: HEOS will have representation on new Governing Council, which they lacked before
    • Failure of SPS to hire FTers underlies many of the dysfunctions of the governance plan
    • Past Monday & next Monday (5:30) SPS community meeting allowed/allows comments on governance plan online → SPS will go back to governance plan & resubmit with changes to SPS Deans & Directors
    • Are there contract violations in the new governance plan?
      • Contract calls for dept P&B committees
    • Next steps?
      • Will raise our objections at next SPS L-M
      • PSC commentaries need to be sent out to SPS
      • Bring up at DA tonight during President’s Report – Susan
      • Line up 1 FT, adjuncts & HEO to speak against new governance plan at Monday community mtg
        • Ask interested but remote adjuncts for statement – Susan
        • Recruit HEOs to speak – Jennifer
        • Ask a PO to come speak – Marc
  • DA prep – 10 min
    • Attendance
    • Constitutional amendment


Goals & Plans for Chapter-Building:

  • 2 chapter meetings at GC (end of Feb, end of Apr) – Chloe
    • Organizing & Building Power in the Age of Janus
      • Focused on training for organizing
    • Look into booking DSC rooms so we can bring our own food [Also, English or another dept with a large lounge will work]
  • 1 chapter meeting at SPS, SPH, JSchool, Murphy (one campus per month, Jan-Apr?)
    • For meetings of mostly HEOs, ask HEO chapter to fund food
    • What is the goal?
      • SPS (Susan & Jennifer), SPH (Frank & Sam), JSchool (Sam & Gogie): information & recruitment
      • Keep in contact w/ Murphy organizers, offer support but they will spearhead – Chloe
      • Recruit Murphy faculty/staff to sign up SPS fee payers – Susan & Jennifer
        • Phone-banking may be more effective than walk-arounds
  • Workshop: “Striking Under the Taylor Law” (beginning of May) – Travis, Sam, Aaron B.
    • Incorporate trainings (on tabling, organizing convos) into workshops?
  • Periodic tabling to build for specific events (workshops, chapter meetings, union-wide actions, etc.) – stewards bottom line
  • Membership blitz + recruiting activists (Jan 29- Feb 16)
    • Walk-throughs of low-density departments & affiliate campuses to get membership sign-ups & inoculate against Janus focused on FT faculty & HEOs – Zee & Gerry
      • HEO & FT faculty EC members
      • Tabling in lobby & cafeteria – stewards bottom line
        • GA EC members
    • Signing up all full timers, including visiting professors!
  • Public meeting on bullying/harassment prevention (early Feb) – Travis & Anh
  • Joint EC & steward meeting (schedule for Feb) – Anh
  • Departmental meeting announcements (throughout semester) – stewards bottom line

Murphy Faculty comments and concerns re: SPS proposed governance

​To Dean Mogulescu, Governance Review Task Force, and SPS colleagues,

We did not submit anonymous responses to the proposed Governance documents for the School of Professional Studies. Instead, we write as a group to raise our concerns and objections directly to our colleagues across the school. The Murphy Institute is currently part of the School of Professional Studies.  Although our ultimate institutional status is not resolved, it is highly likely that we will not be part of SPS or working under governance plans created for SPS in the future.

Nevertheless, as current members of the academic community of SPS and as faculty at CUNY we offer here our deep concerns regarding the proposed governance plans. We do not see in the proposed structures meaningful shared governance.  Our concerns flow from two central structural elements, one of the school itself, the other from the plans as drafted.  The first is the school’s excessive reliance on contingent faculty positions; the second is the extraordinary powers granted the position of the Dean in the proposed governance plan.

Shared governance is a longstanding and fundamental principle of higher education throughout the United States.  It recognizes that the joint expertise of faculty and administration is necessary for the success of a school, college or university system. Authority should flow from responsibility, and those who are responsible for particular areas of work should have primary authority. Given shared responsibilities for many core university functions, consultation and representation should be the norm even when primary authority sits with either faculty or administration.

Academic freedom is an essential foundation for shared governance, but it is compromised by the recent explosion of contingent forms of academic employment, since these are outside the tenure system which protects academic freedom.  The contingent nature of the vast majority of SPS faculty thus diminishes the school’s capacity for shared governance. The instructional staff at SPS is overwhelmingly comprised of adjuncts. Even the “faculty”, as defined in the proposed governance documents, is overwhelmingly non-tenure track.  From the draft:

For these purposes, the “faculty” consists of all Academic Directors, Academic Community Leaders, Consortial Faculty, full-time faculty, Institute Heads holding faculty rank, and adjunct faculty holding three-year appointments at the School.

The un-defined “Academic Community Leaders,” Academic Directors, Consortial faculty, Institute heads, and adjuncts with three year appointments that make up the “faculty” (in addition to the (also unspecific) category of “full-time faculty”) all lack long-term job security, and most owe their appointments directly to the Dean. Given the contingent nature of such “faculty” positions, as defined in the documents, and the even greater job insecurity of the larger instructional staff at the school, independent voices who could raise challenging questions without fear of reprisal in the proposed council, its committees, or any governing bodies, will be few.

SPS is not alone in regard to the increased contingency among faculty positions, though it is exceptional in its embrace of the model in its staffing decisions and program development. We do not believe that contingent faculty should be excluded from governance. But we note that when the preponderance of faculty are contingent, and owe their positions directly to administrators, they cannot be said to have the same voice or power as their tenured peers.

But even putting aside the essential limits on shared governance in an institution lacking sufficient tenured or tenure-track faculty, the draft governance plan for the school further enlarges the powers of Dean and erodes the capacity for independent faculty judgment or leadership in regard to curricula, faculty hiring and teaching (leaving aside research and scholarship, the existence of which this plan entirely fails to recognize).

In the proposed governance plan, regular adjuncts without three year appointments, the bulk of the teaching staff, have no role in the governance of the school.  Academic directors are appointed, not elected. Program-level governance does not exist.  The plan is silent on how consortial faculty are to be chosen.  When tenured faculty do not comprise the necessary majorities for personnel decisions, Dean-appointed faculty take on that responsibility. In general, the proposed plans do not allow for the autonomous selection of faculty leadership by faculty.  This is an essential structural component for faculty consultative relationships with School administration. From our reading of the drafts, there is less consultation, less shared governance, in these proposed plans than in the bylaws that govern the school today.  We do not think that the proposed governance plans live up to the letter or spirit of Section 8.5 of the CUNY Bylaws.

Having worked within SPS for many years, we understand that the school is different from other CUNY schools.  But we think these differences, as codified in the proposed plan, represent deep liabilities, not just for CUNY’s norms of shared governance, but also for the future health of the School of Professional Studies itself.  Schools are not corporations.  They are ultimately answerable to governing boards, of course. All CUNY college governance plans recognize the authority of the President (in this case the Dean) to exercise her academic judgement in making recommendations on academic and personnel matters to the Board of Trustees.  But the tradition of shared governance recognizes that faculty independence and academic freedom, along with balanced interdependence of faculty, administration and students, is what makes universities function.  We believe that the concentration of authority in the hands of the Dean, and diminished roles for independent academic professionals  in consulting or deciding upon on all matters regarding the school, will have negative long-term consequences on morale, teaching effectiveness and student success.

We strongly recommend that SPS, in closer correspondence to its own strategic plan, commit itself to recruiting and empowering a full-time, tenure-track professoriat. We further recommend:

  • that the proposed faculty majority of voting members of the school’s governing council be increased to at least 65%
  • that the definition of faculty for governance purposes include only those working on faculty lines as specified by the PSC contract (full time and part time professors, instructors, and lecturers)
  • that council positions guaranteed to adjunct faculty be specified
  • that curricula, program development, academic standards, procedures for review and assessment, and other traditional areas of primary faculty responsibility be placed under the direct authority of committees or governance bodies in which a majority of the members are tenure-track or tenured faculty
  • that until such time that the Personnel committee of the school can be made up of tenured members of the faculty, any additional outside faculty added to the personnel committee be chosen by the tenured faculty at SPS
  • that program level governance be specified, and that such governance include direct input from the adjunct faculty that make up the vast number of instructors at the school
  • that Academic Directors be elected by their faculty
  • that faculty are included in committees that oversee general administrative direction for the school.




The full-time, consortial and visiting members of the faculty at the Murphy Institute, SPS


Mimi Abramovitz, Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor of Social Policy, Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College

Kafui Attoh, Assistant Professor, Urban Studies, Murphy Institute

Juan Battle, Professor of Sociology, Public Health, & Urban Education, Graduate Center

Steve Brier, Professor, Urban Education, Graduate Center

Michael Fortner, Assistant Professor and Academic Director, Urban Studies, Murphy Institute

Josh Freeman, Distinguished Professor, History, Queens College, Graduate Center and Murphy Institute

Penny Lewis, Associate Professor, Labor Studies, Murphy Institute

Steve London, Associate Professor, Political Science, Brooklyn College

Stephanie Luce, Professor and Academic Director, Labor Studies, Murphy Institute

Ruth Milkman, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Graduate Center and Murphy Institute

John Mollenkopf, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center

Ed Ott, Distinguished Lecturer, Labor Studies, Murphy Institute

Frances Piven, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center


Cc: Katherine Conway, Chair, University Faculty Senate

Executive Committee Members, University Faculty Senate

Barbara Bowen, President, Professional Staff Congress

Luke Elliott-Negri, Chapter Chair, Graduate Center PSC​

Resolution Against the Proposed Plan to Implement an ‘Excellency Fee’ for Masters’ Students

Adopted 11/13/17


WHEREAS, President Chase Robinson and Provost Joy Connolly have proposed a plan to effectively increase the tuition for Masters’ students at the Graduate Center by proposing a $100/credit ‘excellency fee’; and

WHEREAS, Masters’ students are required to take 6-12 credits for full-time status, and most Masters’ students take at least 6 credits per semester, which would amount to $600-$1,200 per semester effective increase in tuition; and

WHEREAS, because the GC’s budgeting process is not transparent or democratic, there is no evidence that the money from the proposed fee would go directly to benefit Masters’ students; and

WHEREAS, on October 23rd, the CUNY Board of Trustees voted to increase tuition, by up to $200 /yr for full-time master’s resident students; and

WHEREAS, the total cost of attending an institution of higher learning is more than just tuition and fees; and

WHEREAS, the cost of living in New York City has risen about 23% from 2009 to 2014; and

WHEREAS, in the 2015-2016 academic year, CUNY estimated that students living at home would spend approximately $9,592 in books, transportation, and living expenses, while students not living at home would spend approximately $20,295 on such expenses; and

WHEREAS, instead of demanding funding from the state for increasing services, President Robinson and Provost Connolly are shifting the cost for needed services down to already cash-strapped students; and

WHEREAS, the rising tuition and expenses, stagnant financial aid assistance, insufficient state funding, and the prevalence of low-wage jobs undermine the affordability and stymies the accessibility to higher education and the advancement of a highly-educated and skilled workforce; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the GC chapter of the Professional Staff Congress hereby expressly rejects the plan to levy an ‘excellency fee’ on Masters’ students; and, be it further

RESOLVED, that the GC chapter of the Professional Staff Congress rejects any and all future plans to implement tuition increases under the guise of additional fees; and, be it

RESOLVED, that the GC chapter of the Professional Staff Congress urges management to deploy its ample resources to lead a public campaign and lobbying effort for the full funding of the Graduate Center, and, be it

FINALLY RESOLVED, that the GC chapter of the Professional Staff Congress demands that President Chase Robinson and Provost Joy Connolly release a plan to fund services for Masters’ students without increasing tuition or fees.

November 13th Chapter Meeting Notes

Notes from GC Chapter Meeting – 11/13/17

12:40: Approve agenda

Bill Herbert made announcement about the National Higher Education Collective Bargaining Conference happening on April 15-17, 2018 at the CUNY Graduate Center.

Resolution Against the Proposed Plan to Implement an ‘Excellency Fee’ for Masters’ Students.

  • Presented by Doctoral Student Council
  • President Chase Robinson and Provost Joy Connolly have proposed to increase $100/credit for Masters’ student after the Board of Trustees already voted to increase tuition up to $200/yr.
  • Would apply to all Masters’ Students
  • Argument for solidarity. We should support students who we will need to support us in our contract campaign.
  • Robinson and Connolly are some of the highest paid Admins in CUNY but Masters’ students used to balance budget at GC
  • Amendment- Additional resolve. Resolve that the GC Chapter of the PSC push CUNY management to fully fund GC as solution rather than make Masters’ students pay.
  • Amendment and Resolution passed

Presentation of bargaining demands

  • We are about to launch a contract campaign. Union did a union-wide survey that fed into demands and will help us in bargaining.
  • It took us a long time to get the previous contract, but we built power and are ready for next fight
  • Members want a quicker settlement this time around
  • Cross-title solidarity. We need to fight for each other’s demands.
  • We all need to own the $7k demand. Will be a big budget demand.
  • Open and broaden up participation
  • Janus- need to recommit to union
  • 6 themes- make real gains in salary, achievable breakthrough in adjunct salary, decrease contingency and dependence on online courses, protect members with unions under attack, address needs for equity, consolidate gains of last contract

Review of HEO, Adjunct, and librarian demands from contract 

  • 7K – How do you get 7K? University of Chicago Illinois- Full-time faculty went out on strike for 7K for adjuncts. Victory for all.
  • Library faculty asking for more leave because of weak implementation from last contract. Annual leave rather than a research leave you have to apply for. Gains were supposed to come with additional line for each campus- Cost-ed but not budgeted so no one got additional line so workforce increase for those that are still working.
  • NTAs fighting for same health benefits as adjuncts

Discussion on contract

  • GA demands. How many demands from the GA survey made it into the demands?
    • Top vote getting was $7K for adjuncts (in bargaining agenda).
    • Extend tuition remission for PhD students beyond 5 years. (in bargaining agenda).
    • Way for part-time faculty to become full-time faculty and for GAs to get lecturer lines at CUNY (not directly addressed in bargaining agenda. Job security second to 7K in bargaining demands).
    • Two-tier between fully funded and partially funded PhD students (not directly addressed in bargaining agenda).  Need universal funding. Revive labor-management committee already in contract to figure out funding for GC.
    • Caps on class sizes explicitly dropped.
  • In general in CUNY history, how long does it take to settle contract? How prioritize what push and what give up in demands?
    • In past have taken 3-5 years. Last year was the longest. Retroactive pay each time.
    • City pattern is 2%
    • Length of the contract is not decided in advance. Has to be negotiated and is strategic/ timing before recessions
    • Prioritizing happens first among members (committees) and also questions of how many huge economic demands put forth at the same time (currently 7K)
    • Bargaining committee brings it to EC and then goes to delegates and then to members
    • Largest financial demand is 7K and 5% salary increases. Faculty and HEO are more than Adjuncts so the salary increase is more than 7K demand.
    • Boss, CUNY management, is supposed to find money for raises, not the union. But CUNY management already defeated and says we won’t get money and so we need to get it from within like raising Masters’ fees.
    • Raise for adjuncts need to be reflected for NTAs. NTAs have health benefit issue. Need to work max number of hours to get health benefits. Many work those hours but irregularly and so CUNY denies the health benefits. Contract demands this is regularized over year.

NYSHIP students have is limited compared to full-time and state

  • Does not pay for take-home medical equipment. Student plan only covers 15 visits a year.

Organizing to get contract demands

  • Our contract ends on Nov 30th. There is a plan on doing events at different campuses- GC, Brooklyn College, and Hunter College
    • Meeting November 14 in 6107 at the GC from 12:30-2pm to plan action at the GC
    • Nov 30th rally will be around GC specific concerns.
    • Wear a button
  • Rank-and-file picket organized in September that brought out over 100 members. Not PSC central endorsed. We need to keep mobilizing as rank-and-filers
  • Dec 4 will be city-wide PSC demonstration. Starts at GC at 4:30pm and march to Baruch shortly after 5pm.
    • Committee of Adjuncts and Part-timers- make sure 7K is prominent in demand.  
      • Phone bank Friday, Nov 17th at PSC union from 4-6pm: 61 Broadway: and Monday Nov 20th from 4-6pm. Phone bank to turn out people to Dec 4 event.
    • GC PSC chapter will table week before Dec 4 to get people signed up
  • Is PSC central allocating money to campuses?
    • GC endorsed a resolution brought to DA to allocate NTA money for on the ground organizing. One-on-one organizing.
    • DA did not vote on this. Voted to referring it back to the EC and see if it will be implemented. Vote for referring it back was almost unanimous.
    • Vast majority of our chapter budget goes to sandwiches at meetings. Get a couple of thousand more if don’t get sandwiches.
  • We are not starting from square one right now. Rank-and-filers have been organizing through summer and in the fall. We need to keep organizing locally and without depending on PSC central to give us orders each time.

Labor-Management Demands

  • Out of pocket expenses for events
  • Continue discussion of options for two extra years of GA renewal beyond current five
  • Revising admission and yearly financial aid award letters to reflect actual allocations and work requirements
  • Science Fellows issues review
  • Follow-up on Social Welfare Doctoral Program
  • Administrative staffing of new departments/programs

What else?

  • Equal funding for all PhD students. Stop two-tier funding.
  • More parity in GA teaching placements. Need to also address it in departments. Varies from department to department. Assigned to campuses and once at campuses out of hands of department. Negotiation happens between GC EOs and Department EOs. Good labor-management demand that admin here take accountability for students. EOs are part of PSC so also PSC issue.

Marisa Holmes

  • Hunter graduate. Worked for 4-years at CUNY TV. University public access station.
  • Layoffs happened at CUNY TV without discussing it with either union- DC37 and PSC. Workers were successful in seize and desist going into affect.
  • CUNY TV then implemented hours cut. Two different lines doing same job so that CUNY can avoid paying benefits for some workers. Workers fought against split-title issue and successfully got settlement for 57 people.
  • A New Director got hired who used to work at Fox. Evaluate, interrogate.
  • Then there was a crack down and organizers were targeted. Workers were reassigned and demoted. There are 2 retaliation claims at the moment.
  • Marisa received notice that told her she no longer had her job. Not sure if fired or let go. Now environment of fear at CUNY TV.
  • DC37 and PSC have been holding rallies. Raise awareness.
  • Next hearing is Feb 14 for retaliation claim.

November 3rd EC Meeting Minutes

Minutes from chapter’s Executive Committee Meeting – 11/3/17

  • Reflections on Oct DA & coordination at future DAs – 25 min
    • EC member asked Marc why GAs & adjuncts took up so much of the discussion
      • Luke wasn’t able to set up mtg w/ GA advisory group b/f DA because BT hasn’t discussed what BT members can reportback to their constituencies & what they can’t → Luke couldn’t tell us what the discussions in BT looked like so naturally we had many Qs & suggestions
    • The Q is how much energy we should spend on process vs organizing/building
    • A better procedure for the future would be to release demands early & then allow formal submission of amendments so everyone can review leading up to DA → will prevent frantic environment & more productive discussion
      • Can we do something substantive with this demand? Create a resolution?
    • DA failed to give ppl sense of ownership of the demands
    • All PSC-EC members should coordinate our resolutions & amendments w/ the rest of the team
    • Also share organizing reports at DA more than just amendments
  • Goals for the GC Chapter Meeting on 11/13 & advice for the planning team – 15 min
    • Choose certain demands & focus there? Mapping of couple issues (targets, allies)
    • Cross-title sharing of top demands–line up ppl to give short testimonies
    • Small group discussions of why a certain demand is important or to do mapping
    • Mobilize for contract campaign rally on 12/4 (day of BoT mtg at Baruch) → have sign-up sheet, get ppl to turn out colleagues & reportback on google form
    • Discussion Q of what the GC’s intervention should be in the contract campaign
    • Post & announce report on community mtg or participatory budgeting & bring in info about mtg w/in strategy discussion
    • Report on WAC grievance
    • Announcement on campus actions around 7k
  • Sexual harassment procedures among PSC – 5 min
    • In light of recent high-profile sexual harassment casts in Hollywood & labor movement, we should explore some options for dealing with this among our activist ranks
    • PSC staff has procedures w/in framework of contract & applies to POs
    • Anh will talk to Deirdre for ideas on what’s been done & existing policies
  • Agency fee payers update – 10 min
    • Our beginning of semester push has died down
    • We still have roughly 60 FT fee-payers → contributes a large chunk of PSC budget
    • FTers on our EC has been working on converting fee payers
    • Still 300 GA fee payers → what’s our plan?
      • Sam and Maya just did mapping across depts
      • Hard sciences have moved from red (low membership coverage) to green (high membership coverage)
      • We haven’t FoIL’ed yet for department info on new students
      • Business is still red
    • How to build stewards structure?
      • Last stewards mtg: stewards will find a steward in an uncovered dept
      • Depts w/ stewards have high coverage & the people who haven’t already signed up will likely not sign up
      • How to find stewards in uncovered depts?
        • Assign depts for EC members to recruit a steward
        • EC member could team up w/ steward
      • Leverage ppl’s presence at chapter meeting; use sign-in sheets to ID potential stewards
  • Items for Labor Management on 11/28 & strategies for follow-up – 10 min
    • Stuff to f/u on from last LM: 5-1-1, raise GA work cap, financial aid letters, Social Welfare students
    • Stuff to add to next mtg: reimbursements for students who spend out of pocket, request Provost presence at every LM mtg, names of GAs for whom we don’t have adequate dept data (to avoid FoIL process)
    • Strategies to hold mgmt accountable:
      • Marc will maintain spreadsheet of items we’ve raised so we can follow up
      • Public shaming at chapter mtgs, community mtgs
    • Talk to DC 37 about NTAs & part-time titles
  • Solidarity w/ Georgette Fleischer – 5 mins
    • We sent letter requesting reinstatement to Barnard, but this was ignored
      • Many institutions have sent letters after we did
    • Now in grievance
      • 1st arbitrator on list not available until Apr; next 2 are available immediately; but Barnard not moving down the list
      • Boston College AAUP’s letter calls on Barnard to move down the list → do we send a similar letter?
      • Will send to PSC beforehand as courtesy
  • Mutual aid proposal – 5 mins
    • One of our members has serious health issues & NYSHIP health insurance doesn’t cover → can we have a mutual aid solidarity fund? But issues w/ criteria, admin, ethics
    • Chapter meeting pass the hat on ad hoc basis better  
    • Or pass these issues onto DSC
  • Approach toward 7k organizing and turnout for contract rally – 15 min
    • Stewards have been informed about options for adjunct organizing
    • Adjunct Project held event this past week
    • Promoting on social media is fine for most issues
    • Mobilize to whatever PSC 7k stuff is happening, but to the extent that that’s not happening, we can roll w/ the 7k coalition if they come to chapter EC w/ specific asks

Proposed Agenda for 11/13 Chapter Meeting

  • Amend & adopt proposed agenda (3 min)
  • Bill Herbert- Announcement on Center for Higher Education Collective Bargaining, Hunter College (2 min)
  • Andrea Vasquez- Introduction of PSC/CUNY bargaining demands (5 mins)
    • Context for bargaining demands
    • How does bargaining proceed?
  • Brief presentation of top demands for 3 PSC job titles (HEOs, GAs, Adjuncts) (10 mins)
    • Why it is important to understand demands across the membership?
  • Open discussion of bargaining agenda (25 mins)
    • Reflections & reactions
    • How will members be involved in the organizing and bargaining process?
  • Fundraising for GC member’s medical issue (2 mins)
  • Open Discussion on translating demands into victories (30 mins)
    • What organizing is already taking place? How do we plug in?
    • How can we increase mobilization across all job titles?
    • What role will the GC play in overall PSC efforts?
    • What areas can the GC community be engaging in to pressure management?
    • Sign-up & recruitment for Dec 4th Contract Action
  • Discussion of Upcoming Labor/Management Meeting (13 mins)
    • Gains from previous Labor/management meeting
    • What needs to be followed up on from previous meetings?
    • What needs to be addressed at upcoming meeting?

October 19th Delegate Assembly Notes

Delegate Assembly (DA) Notes—Contract Demands (notes from Chloe Asselin)

On Thursday, October 19, the PSC leadership presented delegates with possible contract demands to vote on. Our contract expires on November 30, 2017, and we need to start bargaining for a new contract. Delegates were given 48 hours before the meeting to read the demands, which were created by the bargaining team with advice from different committees that rank-and-file members participated in.

The contract discussion went from 7-9pm. Some delegates raised concerns which were then answered by members of the bargaining team, other delegates presented amendments to the demands. All 8 amendments presented to the DA were introduced by Adjuncts and Graduate Assistants regarding Adjunct and GA concerns. 6 of the amendments were introduced by members of the Graduate Center chapter. Every amendment was voted down by the DA, which is made up of mostly full-time faculty and staff. Some of the votes around Adjunct and GA concerns were close and warranted card counts.  Many of the same people spoke multiple times throughout the evening. At 9pm, with 7 rank-and-file members standing at the microphone, a motion was made to cut the speaking list and move straight to the contract demand vote. The motion was approved [see approved bargaining agenda here] and the rank-and-file members at the microphone were not given the ability to speak. After the vote, President Bowen announced that the current contract’s expiration date is November 30th and that this will be a day of action for the PSC on different campuses and city-wide.

DA minutes

President Bowen

  • We need to use collective bargaining to improve teaching and learning at CUNY. Past contracts have won the basic gains we have today. Management, NYC mayor, and NYS governor not advocates of CUNY. Goal of contract is combining individual gains with structural changes.
  • Bold moves in contract demands according to President Bowen:
    • 5% salary increases for all
    • $7000 per course minimum for adjuncts
    • Move towards consolidating gains made in other rounds of bargaining- structural changes for HEOs, full-time teaching loads, and 3-year appointments for adjuncts
  • What’s not in the demands:
    • Demands for what we are currently grieving. If grieving, we are saying that we have a right and deserve to have it. If we put is as demand, we undermine the grievance and admit we don’t have it as a right.
    • Might be less ambitious demand than what is already there
    • Management will say not permissible at bargaining table
    • Priorities made by bargaining team
  • The only way we win is by fighting together. Balance in contract demands for all titles in CUNY. Fighting for whole city, not just ourselves.

Members of the bargaining team highlighted parts of the contract demands:

Andrea Ades Vasquez – Salary

  • Spoke in favor of $7000 per course for adjuncts. PSC fought for adjunct health insurance. All titles were on board. 1500 adjuncts have received 3-year appointments this past year. HEOs know job insecurity because HEOs have to wait 8 years for job security.
  • It will take many campaigns to win but union is on board for $7000 per course.

Nivedita Majumdar – Educational technology

  • Demands around educational technology. The politics of austerity diminish our compensation, erode our power as workers, and decrease quality of education. Online courses create multi-tiers of education. As you go down in economic privilege, educational technology becomes substitute for faculty. Removes power from faculty to shape curriculum.
  • Provision against outsourcing of online courses
  • Faculty should be able to choose modality of teaching course
  • Faculty must be informed of loss of intellectual property rights

Luke Elliott-Negri – Union dues, membership information, and reassigned time

  • Janus. Not in contract but we need to organize on our campuses, sign on fee payers, steward structures, activate membership
  • Demands include control over dues check-off, DC37 has had their membership information FOILed so PSC wants to know if PSC membership lists are FOILed, access to new hire orientations, and increase reassigned time for union work.

Contract Demand Discussion:

  • Things in last contract not implemented: Reduced teaching load for full-time faculty. Librarians off for 40 days but no librarian can ever do that because not enough librarian faculty,
    • Progress has been made in full-time teaching load for faculty
    • All library faculty can take that time and should report to union if don’t get it
  • $7000 per course. Need to activate 11,000 adjuncts. Need MOE paid. Need whole union as one demand.
  • $7000 per course. How does this affect science faculty who have to teach 6 hours so twice the amount of hours?
    • $7000 is minimum so will be proportional to size of course
  • Adjunct CLTs.
    • Adjunct CLTs are in different universe than instructional. Need to get job security before expanding. Demand has provision on CLT health insurance
  • Amendment presented by Adjuncts: $7000 per course for adjuncts great but need job security too. Non-economic demands- seniority system by date of hire that gives seniority rights to courses, revisions of 3-year hire needed but too many adjuncts will not qualify (Vote fails 48-79).
    • Speaking Against: seniority has been demand in the past. Has been argued in the past. CUNY very much opposed. Have been through two rounds of bargaining unable to achieve this. 3-year appointment was a breakthrough. Need to solidify 3-year appointment and not have diversions.
    • Speaking in Favor: 3-year was breakthrough but excludes so many people. We have 12500 adjuncts and only 1500 on 3-year appointments. Good start but we need to have seniority on the table.
    • Speaking Against: 3-year appointments are structural change at CUNY. Ongoing and more adjuncts will fall into the pool going forward. In this contract, demands improve 3-year. Seniority system in most unions no-brainer, but complicated with diverse pool of adjuncts. Will have perverse effects. If lose a course, lose healthcare.
    • President Bowen said that some of the issues about adjuncts not eligible for 3-year, this contract seeks to address. Demand 10 out of 14 semesters rather than 10 consecutive semesters to get appointment.
  • Salary differential for HEOs. How will changes affect HEO salary differential and promotion? There is nothing about promotion in the demands. At City College, salary differential denied because of lack of money.
    • Management uses excuses of lack of money to not honor HEO assignment differentials. This needs to be put in the contract and then we need to push management to deliver on it.
    • Hunter has said no salary differentials for HEO.
  • Clarification: Department chairs are complicit in hiring adjuncts. $7000 is important but what about process. Usually win amount of money in contract fight and divide it up. 5% for all and $7000 per adjunct both a lot of money. What will get prioritized?
    • President Bowen- pattern bargaining throughout city. We have to use force of bargaining to say there needs to be infusion into CUNY’s budget to pay for salaries for part-timers. Increase of 1-2-3% seen as incremental. 50-100% is major change and that is what we need. CUNY management budgets on underpaid faculty. Use leverage of bargaining to demand something that exceeds demand. Also fighting on city and state budget. Approach of adding, not subtracting.
  • Educational technology- Chancellor is pushing for 25% to be online. Faculty underpaid for course development. Only paid to teach course and not to develop course. Faculty at BMCC attended 9-week course not paid for. BMCC decided 50-50 ownership for the course.
    • Work for hire means that if you are hired to do work outside of regular work and if that work is subject to copyright laws. Faculty create courses and have ownership. Work for hire means you lose ownership of that course. How does 50-50 ownership work at BMCC? A lot of new territory so in contract so that university knows practices are under scrutiny.
    • A lot of demands in Edtech. None of those demands won in last contract. Faculty attending courses for free is violation of current contract and is a grievance.
    • Arguing for intellectual property was lost in courts.
  • Amendment presented by Adjuncts: 3-year appointments. Change from mandatory to discretionary. Up to adjuncts to decide. Against up and out clause so that adjuncts don’t get fired (motion fails).
    • Speaking against: would you make tenure discretionary? Will be abused because adjuncts have no power.
    • Speaking for: Protect adjuncts who could be fired because up for 3-year and don’t get it. If go up for 3-years and don’t get it (can be subjective), can lose your job. Doesn’t undermine provision. Some of 1500 adjuncts were not all senior adjuncts. Not grandfathering.
    • Speaking against: Discretionary takes power from part-timer and gives it to chair. Chair can use it as leverage to part-time faculty. This is structural change and changes come with tradeoffs. Opting out of job security provision.
  • Graduate Assistant demands. Did not happen automatically. We went from 13-67% GA union membership. Got 600 respondents on survey. Point of clarification about stipends being reduced. Stipends are work related money because GC makes it that way. We must take whole fellowship and cannot take only part of it.
  • Adjunctification undermines full-time and undermines our education. Really need to center $7000 per course and job security as non-negotiable demand.
    • PSC fought for health insurance and 3-year provision more than anything.
  • Amendment presented by Graduate Assistants: 27a. Language in current contract does not match what GC does. Contract says graduate students are only eligible for 3-years of funding. Most of those packages are for 5-years. Tuition only 5 years for graduate students and takes longer particularly at CUNY (motion fails).
    • Speaking Against: President Bowen: this is complicated. Article 11 in contract about GAs is badly defined. That whole language needs to be updated. The practice now is to ignore that provision that it is only 3-years of funding. Some interest on management in changing that. CUNY management may request this. Could undermine our claim that the past practice of 5-years should stand and same sentiment might be coming from management.
    • Speaking For: Not just about changing the language from 3 years to 5 years but also the current contract says that after 3 years you can get additional 2 years by jumping through hoops. Leave that language in place to 5 years with addition of 2 years. Past practice is fine, but we want to expand to 7 years.
    • Speaking Against: Tactical question. Brought it to President Robinson at GC. Bargaining team educated and on same page. Don’t need to change it in PSC contract.
  • Amendment presented by Graduate Assistants: 28b. Change to non-teaching adjuncts 150 hours 6 of previous 10 semesters rather than 6 consecutive semesters because health issues, pregnancies, family time means sometimes teach over the summer (motion fails).
    •  Speaking Against: NTAs want tuition waivers. Don’t have access at all. That is focus.
    • Speaking Against: Borrowing language from instructional adjuncts in this provision to make it more effective to win. If change language, will be more difficult.
  • 27d- what does “certain provisions” mean? GAs want step increases. Language became more vague and step increases not there.
  • Amendment presented by Graduate Assistants: 27c. Want adequate funding for all graduate students. At the moment multiple tier system exists in departments where only certain students get fully funded. Add “adequate funding for all PhD students”. The Amendment was withdrawn after discussion.
    • Speaking Against: Problem with word “students” because we bargain for employees
    • Speaking For: Fight for all students because then all become employees. Make committee to discuss this.
    • Speaking Against: Just demand and just objective. Question is what is hook? Management hates committees. It is a lot of work to get them to form a committee. Those issues should emerge when we constitute committee. But adding it will be obstacle.
    • A Full-time faculty suggested that the Amendment as constituted weakens current demand. Make it a new demand.
      • Speaking Against: We don’t represent graduate students. Trump board will overturn fact that graduate employees can organize. We don’t want to undermine that we represent graduate employees. Political demand rather than contract demand.
  • Three Amendments presented by Graduate Assistants and Adjuncts where adjuncts don’t have parity with full-timers (motion fails).
    • 1. 24.2b No other contractual titles have six consecutive semesters to move a step penalizing those that do research or have child care issues. Move to 6 semesters rather than 6 consecutive semesters.
      • Speaking For: A lot of people lose their step increases because they have to start over again.
      • Question: Can anyone take a leave and still have a step?
      • Speaker Against: takes away from fight for $7000 per course.
    • 2. Compensation for course cancellations within two weeks prior to the beginning of the semester. Cancellation within this time period can result in a loss of health benefits.
      • Speaking For: Asking for only 2 weeks for compensation for loss of a class. 2 weeks is nothing.
      • Speaking Against: 3-year appointments mean adjuncts do have to be compensated. Registration is not closed 2 weeks in advance to allow more students to register, so it’s not possible. It works both ways. The fact that more students register is an opportunity for more adjuncts to get hired, but may also not produce that.
      • Speaker Against: takes away from fight for $7000 per course.
    • 3. 6.3 Part-time staff cannot have release time.
      • Speaking Against: Given stipends. Paid in stipends, not release time.
      • Speaking For: Not equivalent of teaching a course so part-timers lose health insurance for doing this work if don’t teach 2 courses.
      • Speaking For: Some adjuncts teach 4 courses and do union work on top of that.
      • Speaking Against: Reassigned time paid by CUNY and adjuncts not paid if not teaching. Thus, the union pays for that time.
  • At 9pm, with 7 rank-and-file members standing at the microphone, a motion was made to cut the speaking list and move straight to the contract demand vote. The motion was approved and the rank-and-file members at the microphone were not given the ability to speak.

Contract Demands were Approved

President Bowen announced that the current contract’s expiration date is November 30th and that this will be a day of action for the PSC on different campuses and city-wide.

Need help with the Commons? Visit our
help page
Send us a message
Skip to toolbar