TL;DR
The Unified Bargaining Committee met with management in Newark on October 22. We discussed the recent salary letter from management, sent to the press and the leadership of coalition unions, and demanded that management provide a real counter.
We then discussed workload issues for BHSNJ faculty – we presented our counters for the School of Health Professions (Article 40B) and School of Nursing (Article 30) articles, and we discussed the union’s proposal for the School of Public Health article. So far, the administration has failed to offer counter-proposals – on these articles or others – that meaningfully address faculty concerns about rising and unsustainable workloads.
Highlights from the Session
Discussion of Salary Letter
Union leadership began the session with a reproach of management’s tactic of sending their salary letter to the press at the same time as to all Rutgers unions. This is not bargaining at the table but through the press, which is not the norm.
The salary letter that management sent claimed to address the current “challenging financial environment” as a way of justifying a proposal that does not even account for inflation for any of our members. This is insulting. According to research by Moody, Rutgers already has $933M in reserves and have put forward budget proposals to the union that indicate wanting an additional $300M while undergoing a hiring freeze and tuition hike. When Rutgers compared themselves in the press to other universities in financial distress, they are creating a false equivalence. Our university carries an Aa3 bond rating, unchanged for a decade and affirmed as recently as February 2026, as well as $8.8B in total assets and roughly $3B in cash and investments. Meanwhile, executives are still taking bonuses.
Our salary proposals would improve fair pay across job class and prioritize patient access to care. One in five Rutgers employees do not make a living wage. Management wants to offer raises of 3% for our lowest earners. Inflation is 3.7%. “Affordability” for the university cannot abandon the most vulnerable.
We challenged management to give us a real counter and not simply a “concept” – in other words, we need specific, tailored counterproposals that address our original union proposal on compensation.
Workload Discussions on School of Health Professions, School of Nursing, and School of Public Health
The union presented counters for two workload articles: the School of Health Professions (SHP) Workload article (Article 40B) and the School of Nursing (SON) article (Article 30). Management also asked questions about the Union’s proposed workload article for the School of Public Health (here).
The goal of all three articles is to ensure that faculty have the time they need to excel in their teaching, research, and service work. These articles aim to promote a high-quality education by setting reasonable class size limits and ensuring that if course enrollment increases, faculty will have guaranteed time to meet the needs of their additional students. These articles also aim to ensure that faculty have the time and support they need to pursue their research – particularly in areas where federal policy has threatened crucial research grants and efforts. All three articles aim to ensure that if faculty take on extra work, this work should be voluntary and fairly compensated.
So far, the administration has failed to offer counter-proposals – on these articles or others – that meaningfully address faculty concerns about rising and unsustainable workloads. We await management’s response on all three proposals/counters.
Next Steps
The next bargaining session is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 27, at 10 a.m., at Liberty Plaza in New Brunswick.