On Tuesday, we had our 7th bargaining session with the Sinai administration.
During this session, we introduced a new proposal aimed at strengthening rights and protections for international researchers, who make up the majority of our union and often face significant uncertainty related to immigration status, visa renewals, and the path to permanent residency.
Among other improvements, our proposal would:
-
Ensure the right of international researchers to be sponsored for permanent residency (a green card) shortly after hiring and to cover all costs associated with that process;
-
Ensure that international researchers receive clear information about visa options when they are hired;
-
Ensure researchers are sponsored for the longest possible visa duration;
-
Provide institutional support with visa renewals and required travel;
-
Provide reimbursement of visa-related expenses; and
-
Provide support if immigration issues delay a researcher’s ability to return to the United States.
Sinai also presented counterproposals on several non-economic articles, including Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment, Discipline and Dismissal, and Grievance and Arbitration.
On Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment, Sinai rejected our proposal to include protections from discrimination, harassment, bullying, and retaliation in our contract—the same protections that Sinai currently provides for postdocs. Alarmingly, their proposal appears to exclude cases that deal with sex-based discrimination, such as sexual harassment, from the grievance and arbitration procedure, leaving Instructors and Scientists without clear timelines and remedies.
On Discipline and Dismissal, Sinai rejected a number of key improvements we proposed, including notifying researchers of their right to Union representation when being disciplined or dismissed, and notifying our union so we can support the individual. We will keep fighting for a fair disciplinary process that allows members to challenge unjust discipline.
On Grievance and Arbitration, key differences between Sinai’s proposal and ours include timelines for filing grievances, whether meetings occur at early stages of the process, how arbitrators are selected, and the scope of an arbitrator’s authority. We asked questions about their counterproposal and emphasized the importance of a fair process that allows members to enforce the contract effectively. Sinai’s proposal would make our contract less enforceable overall compared to what Sinai agreed to with unionized postdocs.
Sinai indicated they will continue reviewing our proposals and will respond in upcoming sessions. Overall, we were concerned by Sinai’s apparent desire to lower standards for all unionized researchers at Sinai.
Our next bargaining session will take place on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, from 3 pm to 6 pm. Click here to RSVP if you would like to observe the session.
As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out with questions or thoughts.
In solidarity,
Rajagowthamee Ravanapuram-Thangavel, Microbiology Department
ROCS-UAW Bargaining Committee