Graduate workers need wages that won’t simply be eaten up by Stanford’s company town.
The Stanford Graduate Workers Union (SGWU) has been bargaining with the University since November. Most of this period was focused on negotiating the non-economic terms of the contract, which will define the working conditions of graduate workers. SGWU provided its initial proposal on wages on July 11, and last week, the University presented its initial counterproposal: a 3% increase annually for the next four years.
How generous was their offer? Compare it to the 4.5% rent increase starting this September, following the increases between 3.5% and 4.5% every year during the past five years, as well as a 7.2% increase in the price of the graduate meal plan and a 10% increase in the cost of dependent health insurance coverage. All of this is on top of an annual inflation rate between 3% and 7% that has persisted since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
Before the pandemic, University administration convened an Affordability Task Force (whose findings were never published), which only resulted in few improvements directed toward graduate students that came years later. Stanford sets our rent so high that we graduate workers are forced to make cuts elsewhere, and the University continues to raise our rent faster than our pay. The line for the monthly food pantry pop-up continues to stretch hours long, as it has for years. For these reasons, SGWU proposed an immediate and substantial raise for all graduate workers so we will no longer be rent-burdened and indexing future wages on rent costs and inflation.
When workers elect to be represented by a union, as the graduate workers of Stanford did overwhelmingly in 2023, employers are obligated to negotiate with the union before unilaterally changing working conditions, wages or benefits. Generally, unions and employers reach a contract to set clear bounds on what can and cannot be changed without further bargaining.
Stanford’s economic counterproposal states that the University would have the right to rescind existing tuition, medical and transportation benefits for graduate workers, just like they did with the Caltrain GoPass in 2022. They ignored international graduate workers, even though visa fee support is now standard among union contracts. Their proposal does not guarantee workers’ representation on committees that advise on graduate healthcare plans. There was nothing too small in SGWU’s initial proposals for Stanford to reject.
During bargaining, Stanford’s spokesperson quickly pivoted the discussion to the University’s ability to recruit new talent into Ph.D. programs. They also stated that other factors and perks — like Palo Alto’s nice weather — justify Stanford paying its graduate workers less than a living wage.
SGWU provided its initial economic proposals on July 11, and Stanford provided its response on Aug. 7. Their proposal is an effective wage decrease and a vacation policy stricter than what is currently standard practice. Beyond that, their proposal codifies the status quo. With so few details in their counterproposal, Stanford could also have provided it much sooner, such as on the afternoon of July 11th. Their stalling tactics could delay our contract past our scheduled pay raise in September.
The SGWU Bargaining Committee has spent months dealing with the University’s stonewalling tactics and unproductive counterproposals. As shown on the SGWU Bargaining Tracker, Stanford neglected many of the non-economic proposals for months before looking at them. Contrast the frequency, productivity and substance of the MIT administration’s responses and response times, shown on MIT-GSU’s Bargaining Tracker, with Stanford’s.
The University’s bargaining tactics also continue to reveal its hollow commitment to diversity. Its economic counterproposals ignore SGWU members’ needed improvements to healthcare, child care and family support. While presenting, Stanford reiterated a nondiscrimination proposal that claims to prohibit discrimination based on some characteristics, but specifically excludes the case of sex discrimination from protection. Considering Stanford’s long-running issues with sex discrimination, the proposal is irresponsible and ineffective.
Further, Stanford’s nondiscrimination proposal is designed to minimize accountability. The University and SGWU have agreed to a grievance procedure by which SGWU and the University will mediate disputes. Yet, the University proposed that the grievance procedure would not apply to discrimination. Instead, they propose an abbreviated procedure that kicks in after the University finishes investigating the discrimination through a lengthy process, which can span as long as it chooses. SGWU wants timely, complete and real protections for everyone who experiences discrimination, harassment of any form or power abuse.
Stanford, do better.
Graduate workers, let’s work together to secure the contract we deserve. Come to SGWU’s conversation trainings, connect with your coworkers, and let’s bring Stanford back to the table with a serious offer.
Jason Anderson is a sixth-year Ph.D. candidate in aeronautics and astronautics. Parth Nobel is a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in electrical engineering. Alexa Russo is a seventh-year Ph.D. candidate in anthropology. All three are members of the Stanford Graduate Workers Union Bargaining Committee.