Fall 2026: Bargaining Update + FAQ

Despite our efforts to engage in good-faith bargaining with UM Academic HR (AHR), the University has yet to offer the meaningful improvements we need. Instead, they have repeatedly proposed striking entire articles from the agreement without providing any meaningful justification, including articles about Transportation and Parking as well as AI, Data, and IP Rights. They’ve said no to caps on class sizes, expanded childcare benefits, comprehensive immigration protections and measures protecting grad workers from ICE, and improved gender affirming care. On top of that, they are asking us to take a pay cut. Their salary counterproposal was insulting: a 1.5% raise which pales in comparison to inflation.

In fact, many of their proposals would actually roll back and weaken benefits and protections we already have such as orientations and bulletins. In addition, they are trying to carve GSRAs out of  the contract. 

As graduate workers, we are all frustrated that we still have not ratified a new contract for the 2026–2029 academic years. At a time when the cost of living continues to rise and our international coworkers face real and growing threats to their ability to live, work, and study here, we need a contract that provides meaningful improvements for all graduate workers.

We know this process has raised a lot of questions and concerns across departments. Below are some frequently asked questions that we have been hearing from our coworkers, along with information to help clarify where we are at with bargaining.

What happened during summer bargaining?

We have had a lot of back and forth with HR over the summer. You can follow along and keep track of all pass backs between GEO and the University at https://bit.ly/GEOContractNexus. 

Some highlights from bargaining over the summer which can be found in more detail at bit.ly/GEOBargainingBulletin were: 

• When workers raised concerns about the new federal Duration of Status policy and the University’s failure to provide guidance to affected workers, U-M refused to acknowledge that this was an issue related to working conditions.  U-M’s lead negotiator, who has rejected all of our proposals to support international workers, claimed that changes to I-20 requirements are simply an “academic issue.”This is categorically false: international graduate workers need a valid I-20 in order to work. Read more about the rule at https://bit.ly/GEODSOnePager and https://bit.ly/GEODSFAQ 
• HR struck all of our job security language which included improving immigration protections, appeals processes for terminated workers, ensuring academic freedom, and restricting the use of disciplinary action such as banning workers from campus.
• GEO passed language codifying workload protections for GSRAs, who frequently work 60-hour weeks on 20-hour appointments. HR struck all language protecting GSRA working hours.
• HR struck existing contract language which guarantees days off on  university holidays, and rejected a proposal to ensure GSRAs get 4 weeks of vacation time. HR claimed: “we have a right to determine when the work is done.” 
• UM crossed out our entire new article establishing protections for workers with parking and transportation benefits. This included codifying contract provisions that the University already provides.
• HR struck language preventing the University from disclosing a worker’s union membership to the federal government.  
• HR tried to weaken the 2023 contract by withdrawing access to bulletin board spaces and restricting GEO orientations  to once per year. 
• HR struck a proposed appeal process for disability accommodations,tied accommodations to vaguely-specified “medical documentation,” and are placing arbitrary limits on temporary accommodations.
• The University argued for its ability to use AI to evaluate and track grad workers without restrictions, claiming they lack the ability to track workers’ consent to the use of these tools.
• We signed a Tentative Agreement (TA) on Summer Benefits which guarantees retroactive summer healthcare benefits for grad workers who receive last-minute fall term appointments. 
• In addition, AHR refused to give graduate workers September paycheck advances which would allow workers to request their September paychecks at the end of August. The University is exploiting the fact that the 2023 contract does not stipulate specific dates for the paycheck advances for Fall of 2026 to punish us for not reaching a finalized contract.

In addition to refusing to bargain with us meaningfully, they are also using many different mechanisms in order to derail the process.

• Over the summer, the University initiated a fact-finding process with the state labor agency (the Michigan Employee Relations Committee, or MERC), seemingly in an effort to exploit the legal system to undermine the bargaining process and assert unilateral control over our working conditions. They are using every mechanism to push us to an imposed contract. Read more later in the FAQ on fact finding and at https://bit.ly/GEOFactfindingFAQ.  
• UM charged our Union President, Hiab Teshome, with two baseless and politically motivated felony charges and usurped the prosecutors office to try to ban a bargaining team member and worker from campus. Academic HR admitted at the table that on the day of Hiab’s arraignment that they knew that felony charges had been filed by Sergeant Ryan Cavanaugh and refused to disclose why it was relevant that they knew that information and who informed them. Read more at bit.ly/HiabNarrative. On August 6 due to our organizing we defeated the charges! 

Is the contract still in effect?

Yes, the contract is still in effect. The Union and the University have agreed that the current contract will remain in effect while negotiations are ongoing, and neither party has taken any steps yet to terminate the contract during the bargaining process.

Why is bargaining taking so long?

The University of Michigan has taken multiple steps to delay and drag out the bargaining process, leaving us in our current position. Although bargaining officially began in November, access was heavily restricted and the University refused to come to the table for open bargaining until March. We won open bargaining because workers understood how important it is for every graduate worker to have the ability to participate meaningfully in the bargaining process. We held the line, built pressure, and ultimately forced the University to agree to open bargaining.

In February, the University also refused to meet with workers in the bargaining room to discuss our demand for non-collaboration with ICE. In response, more than 100 workers wrote letters explaining why this demand was so important and marched to HR’s office to deliver them directly. The mediator then imposed a 28-day pause in negotiations. This interruption denied graduate workers fair access to the bargaining process and was clearly intended to disorganize our efforts. When the period ended, however, HR had lost its resolve to continue fighting open bargaining, and our organizing pressure ultimately secured open bargaining.

The University also continues to pass back proposals with little to no substantive content, often striking out our language in its entirety without offering meaningful alternatives. Our contract language is carefully drafted based on the material working conditions graduate workers experience, and workers invest significant time and effort into developing clear, concrete proposals that address those conditions. HR routinely refuses to answer questions that would allow us to understand the University’s position or engage in meaningful bargaining. This is not productive bargaining, it is a deliberate disorganizing technique that makes it harder for workers to understand where the University stands and to participate meaningfully in the process.

How do we speed up bargaining and win a contract we need?

The past nearly 11 months of bargaining have confirmed what we already know: we must fight harder in order to win what we need. The University has repeatedly failed to take this process seriously, despite the very real and serious conditions graduate workers face. Time and time again, the University has prioritized its bottom line over the workers who make this University run.

We are now at a point where we need to seriously consider what we are going to do together to win the protections we need. The question before us is how we can collectively build and leverage our power to force the University to take our demands seriously and secure the contract we deserve.

First, we need you to come to bargaining and bring a friend! Beyond demonstrating to HR the importance of proposals that impact our working conditions, coming to bargaining is where we discuss and coordinate how to win beyond the table!

Start talking with your coworkers about what we can do together to win the protections we need and, critically, how we can use our labor to make that happen. Building that collective understanding and organizing together is how we turn our demands into power at the bargaining table.

There are many spaces outside the bargaining room to have these discussions including holding a departmental meeting, coming to Organizing Assembly (every other Wednesday at 6pm bit.ly/GEOCalendar) or coming to our upcoming General Membership Meeting (Sept 10 at 6pm).

Who is at the bargaining table and how do decisions about proposals get made?

You!!!! Anyone can be at the bargaining table and on the bargaining team. There are many different roles including speaking at the table, taking notes, and liaisoning with the GEO discord! If you are interested in any of these roles come to bargaining, Contract meeting (Tuesdays 3pm on Zoom and in the office), or email contractchair@geo3550.org.

We make bargaining decisions together. Working groups develop contract language (email contractchair@geo3550.orgif you are interested in joining), which is then discussed during caucus in the bargaining room, when HR is not present. Workers in the room then vote on whether to advance proposals to HR. We also vote during caucus on whether to accept the University’s proposals and sign Tentative Agreements (TAs).

It is so important for workers to be in the bargaining room. The more workers who participate, the more people have a direct say and a vote in shaping the provisions of our contract.

How much will I make 2026-2027? Why have I not received a raise yet? 

Our salary is determined by the contract negotiated between the University of Michigan and GEO, every three years. HR has proposed a 1.5% salary raise which is effectively a pay cut when inflation is at 4.5%. We have not accepted this offer because we deserve a living wage. The living wage in Ann Arbor is approximately $52,000, yet the University continues to refuse to provide comparable compensation for the work that makes this University run. Furthermore, U-M has raised the rent of student housing by ~6% the last two years!

Because we are in the midst of contract negotiations for our raise, we did not receive a raise this year and are being paid the same amount we were paid during 2025-2026. 

We are planning to pass a counter salary proposal during bargaining on September 4! To show U-M how important salary, and other proposals, are to us as grad workers we need as many people as possible in the room. Come to Palmer Commons at 9:30 am on Friday Sept. 4th and bring a friend! There will be a light breakfast and lunch.

Is my summer funding for the future guaranteed?

No. Graduate workers passed a new MOU that would require all doctoral programs, including Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) programs, to be covered under Rackham’s 12-month funding plan and would guarantee funding for six years. The University has not yet presented a counterproposal. However, they have  rejected our proposal to include DMA students in the Rackham funding plan despite testimonials from our DMA coworkers expressing how difficult it is to make ends meet without guaranteed summer funding. We plan to keep fighting for summer funding for all.

What is the University doing about international worker protections? 

The University has categorically failed to support international workers. They have refused to bargain over any of our proposed immigration protections, claiming that these issues are unrelated to working conditions even though the University knows that immigration status is directly tied to a worker’s ability to work. The University has either refused to engage with or struck in its entirety the following proposals:

• Remote work authorization for workers who are unable to return to the country 
• SEVIS protections 
• Support for the International Center 
• Increasing the International Graduate Worker Fund 
• Guaranteed immigration lawyer consultation 
• Non-collaboration with ICE and the federal government
• Immigration related extended Leaves of Absences 

You can read more on these proposals at https://bit.ly/GEOImmigrationContractBreakdown 

In addition, the University has repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of basic immigration policies and laws, incorrectly claiming that issues such as I-20 requirements are “academic issues” that do not affect our working conditions. Rather than acknowledging the very real workplace implications these policies have for international graduate workers, the University has relied on inaccurate claims to avoid bargaining over a significant and pressing workplace concern.

The University is also attempting to exclude GSRAs from protections that have historically applied to other graduate workers in the contract. For example, the 2023 contract guarantees SEVIS fee reimbursement for GSIs and GSSAs. Now that GSRAs are part of the bargaining unit, the Union updated this language to explicitly include them. In response, the University passed back language that specifically excludes GSRAs from this existing protection.

What is fact finding? Why are we in fact finding? 

Fact finding is administered by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). Usually, fact finding occurs when negotiations have not resulted in a final agreement and when there are only a few issues on the table. The University has decided to initiate fact finding for over 50 issues and are doing so even though in many cases, the parties have only exchanged proposals once. A fact finder reviews the parties’ evidence and arguments and makes non–binding recommendations for resolving the disputed contract provisions. To be clear, this is yet another disorganizing tactic by the University, designed to force the Union into another legal process rather than meaningfully engaging with workers at the bargaining table.

Right now, we are in discussions with the University to determine who will serve as the fact finder. Once the fact finder is selected, public hearings will be scheduled where the Union and the University will each present their positions. We will keep everyone informed and share details as soon as the hearing dates are set. 

You can read more about fact finding on our fact finding FAQ at bit.ly/GEOFactfindingFAQ

When are the next bargaining days? 

September 18, 9:30am Pierpont Commons 

Other organizing events include: 

• Organizing Assembly every other Wednesday at 6pm GEO office or bit.ly/GEOMemberPortal to join on zoom – next one will be on September 2 
• General Membership Meeting September 10 6pm RSVP at geo3550.org/rsvp