.png)
Since the start of the bargaining process with SCLWU, Smith College Management has refused to release cost of living and merit raises, as well as any earned bonuses, to unit members. SCLWU holds firm on the assertion that raises are not only due to our members, but are legally required per the laws enforced by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The bargaining committee (BC) is committed to offering as much transparency as possible during the bargaining process; as part of this, we feel the membership and the public deserve a timeline, breakdown, and explanation of what the union has presented at the bargaining table regarding raises, as well as management’s response.
Bargaining Session 1: June 13, 2024
From the start, it was apparent management had no intention to even discuss the raises scheduled to be released on July 1, 2024 with the BC. It was only brought to the table after the BC asked management to clarify their position on the matter, as unit members were told conflicting information on whether or not they should expect a raise on July 1.
At this meeting, management gave a vague response that the BC could not easily interpret, and the BC was not able to get clarification from management before the session ended. Some BC members thought management’s position implied that cost of living increases would be released for members, but merit raises would not; others interpreted their response to mean members would receive nothing on July 1. The BC decided to approach the subject at the start of the next bargaining session.
Bargaining Session 2: June 20, 2024
At this session, management confirmed they would not release any cost of living or merit raises, as well as any bonuses, to any unit member on July 1; they asserted any economic issues must be bargained.
Management’s reasoning pointed to one argument — all other units on campus negotiate their pay increases separately from non-unit employees; as such, they now group SCLWU under this umbrella and feel they are not obligated to provide any raises until contract ratification, with the condition that increases would be retroactively provided to members once the contract is ratified.
This argument does not consider a very simple but crucial legal requirement enforced by the NLRB — status quo. Per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), status quo protections go into effect as soon as employees submit a filing to the NLRB to have an union election (which, in our case, was March 8, 2024). If a union does not have a ratified contract, the employer legally cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment for unit members while negotiations take place — and this includes standard cost of living and merit increases.
Once management made this position clear, the BC caucused and countered with a proposal that falls within the legal requirements of status quo — management must treat cost of living and merit raises for all unit members as they would prior to union recognition. Prior to union recognition, all Libraries employees were eligible to receive a 2% cost of living increase, as well as a merit increase and discretionary bonus per their supervisor's recommendation on July 1, 2024. None of this should have changed after union recognition, as SCLWU has no contract with economic parameters to adhere to.
As part of this, the BC stressed that any economic parameters bargained for the contract would not impact raises for this year, and would only go into effect after ratification; by releasing the raises as scheduled, there would be no need for retroactive pay and no hassle of factoring in any numbers calculated for the contract. We reiterated: Raises without a first contract must legally be treated the same for all —unit and non-unit— employees.
After hearing this proposal, management seemed amenable and stated they would look it over for consideration.
Bargaining Session 3: July 11, 2024
The BC started the session expecting an update from management on this issue. To our utmost disappointment, management stated their position remained unchanged. Management provided a vague, redundant, and drawn-out explanation for their position, citing that it was “too complicated” to calculate merit raises for unit members, and that they simply could not consider raises because the BC had failed to provide any economic proposals for the contract. Management insinuated that the college’s financial and budgetary status for the upcoming fiscal year must be considered in the context of this year’s raises.
The BC emphatically rejected these reasons for withholding member raises and reiterated that the process was NOT complicated. The process should be identical to any non-unit employee that did, in fact, receive a raise on July 1. Furthermore, no economic contract proposals were necessary; as we stated time and again, under status quo, whatever language that is ratified in the contract has no impact on raises for 2024.
The BC closed out the bargaining session with this message to management — Smith’s bottom line is not above the law. SCLWU will continue to organize around this issue that truly should have been resolved by now. Status quo is straightforward and it seems that management has chosen to intentionally complicate the issue, while placing the blame on the union.
When we call on fellow staff, faculty, alums, and community members for support, this is the reason why — we need to let President Sarah Willie-LeBreton, the Smith Board of Trustees, and Smith College management know that we will not stand for withholding raises our members earned and deserve. Legally, and morally, it’s the right thing to do, and we will not step down from this position.
Comentarios