Updates from GEO Negotiations

This page provides regular updates about negotiations between the University of Michigan and the Graduate Employees’ Organization for the negotiations period beginning in 2025.

October 30, 2026 Negotiations Update

U-M and GEO negotiators met for the twenty-sixth bargaining session today. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) mediator assisted the parties.

Potential Labor Disruption

GEO’s most recent public social media posts have addressed its plans for a labor action. Therefore, the university asked GEO’s leaders if they are planning a strike authorization vote. GEO’s leaders stated that they were not prepared to answer at this time. The university, schools, and colleges are prepared for the possibility of strike. The university will communicate information with the community as needed.

Tentative Agreements

The parties reached three tentative agreements on non-substantive matters that expire at the end of the 2023-2026 contract term. These agreements confirm neither party will propose to renew the MOUs related to special conferences on Gender-Affirming Care Coverage, Disability Accommodations, and Disability Infrastructure.

The university submitted three tentative agreements for GEO’s signature last week, but GEO did not return them this week, even though there are no remaining issues for the parties to resolve.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented two proposals:

Artificial Intelligence, Data Rights and Intellectual Property – GEO's proposal largely aligns with language that is currently under negotiations between the university and the University of Michigan Postdoctoral Researchers’ Organization (UM-PRO). The university responded with a counter proposal that mirrors the same language it proposed to UM-PRO.
Transportation and Parking – GEO made little movement in this counter proposal and changed the initial proposal from requiring free orange parking permits for bargaining unit members to requiring free blue parking passes.

U-M Proposals

The university presented one proposal regarding Special Conferences, which are labor-management meetings. The university’s proposal included language to memorialize special conference discussions, in response to GEO’s concerns last week.

The next session is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2026 because no negotiations rooms suitable to both parties are available. In the meantime, the parties continue preparations for the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) fact-finding process.

Previous Updates

View previous updates on negotiations sessions between U-M and GEO.

October 2026

October 23

U-M and GEO negotiators met for their twenty-fifth bargaining session today with the assistance of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) mediator.

The parties discussed their proposals regarding: 1.) Salary, 2.) Tuition, and 3.) Policies and Procedures for Employees with Disabilities to identify what areas are still in dispute and to create a full picture of the outstanding items that are not permissive bargaining subjects. GEO’s negotiators were unwilling to commit to a shared understanding of the scope of disagreement.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented three counter proposals.

Workload

The union’s proposal continues to include provisions providing four weeks of vacation per year for all GSAs, limiting all GSRA work for 50% appointments to 20 hours per week to be conducted on weekdays only, and the requirement to provide temporary on-campus housing for those required to work outside of the work week.

Job Postings

The union restructured its proposal to align more closely with the current article. In addition, the proposal would incorporate GSRA job postings into the current procedures for GSI/GSSA postings, which would create a significant administrative burden for many school and college units.

Special Conferences

GEO’s proposal continues to require that any special conference result in a written agreement, which would allow every contract item to be reopened by special conference and create an unsettled contract.

U-M Proposals

U-M presented multiple previous proposals in an effort to reduce the number of open provisions before Fact Finding. These proposals are mostly non-substantive and targeted to reducing redundancies. They were never contested, but have not been signed as tentative agreements.

Tentative Agreements Ready for GEO’s Signature

In its continued efforts to identify proposals that can be resolved before the Fact Finding hearing, the university presented three proposals:

Article XXIII Past Practices
MOU IV International Graduate Student Training
MOU VII E-Signatures

The university presented these three articles with its signature affixed because Article XXIII and MOU VII were agreed upon in March, but the union has yet to sign the agreements. GEO presented MOU IV in August 2026 and the university proposed no changes since then. GEO would not commit to signing any of these tentative agreements.

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Compliance

The university resubmitted its November 2025 proposal regarding compliance with the FMLA. The MOU is now obsolete because the parties already agreed to move the FMLA provisions into the Leaves of Absence article. GEO has not objected to moving the FMLA language to the Leaves of Absence Article, but GEO has not signed a tentative agreement.

Work/Life Resources, Lactation Accommodations, Union Dues Authorization, Reproductive Health Care Coverage

Again aiming to achieve agreement, the university re-submitted proposals from November 2025 regarding Work/Life Resource Center, Lactation Accommodations, Continuation of Dues Authorization and a proposal from May 2026 regarding Reproductive Healthcare Coverage. These subjects are either no longer applicable or the language is addressed elsewhere in the contract, and are therefore ready for tentative agreements. GEO did not respond to the university’s request to reach an agreement.

Policy for Graduate Student with Non-English Medium Undergraduate Backgrounds Who Seek GSI Position in LSA

The university also resubmitted its proposed changes to Appendix A, which addresses minor changes designed to align with the LSA program that the Appendix covers.

Comprehensive Proposal and Salary Status

The university presented no new proposals today, in light of its September 18 comprehensive proposal. Included in the comprehensive proposal, the university proposed 2.5% annual salary increases in each year of a four-year agreement for a total 10% salary increase. The 10% salary increase would apply to all GSAs including GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs who were added to the GEO bargaining unit earlier this year.

The union’s most recent salary proposal seeks 9% annual salary increases in each year of a three-year contract for a total of 27%. GSIs and GSSAs received a contractual 8% salary increase in 2023; 6% in 2024; and 6% in 2025 for a total of 20% over three years. While GSRAs were not included in the collective bargaining agreement, they received the same increases in 2023, 2024, and 2025.

GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs have not received a salary increase since September 2025.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for October 30, 2026.

October 16

Today’s negotiations between U-M and GEO were canceled by the MERC mediator due to his availability. The next negotiation session is scheduled for Oct. 23, 2026.

Meanwhile, the following information provides additional context about the negotiations process thus far.

Challenges to progress

A persistent stumbling block is GEO’s insistence on raising permissive and sometimes illegal subjects of bargaining. Because permissive subjects are topics that are not core issues for an employment contract, both parties must consent to negotiate them. For example, GEO continues to attempt to negotiate control of the university’s investments, divestments, and reinvestments. It has made proposals to abolish the Division of Public Safety and Security. It seeks to allow members to decline to teach if they disagree with the faculty instructor on course content. GEO also seeks to eliminate the Office of Student Accountability and require academic funding and remote work options for all graduate students regardless of immigration status or location.

If a topic is important to GEO, why not negotiate it with GEO?

In all of these cases, the union would be negotiating terms that would significantly affect parties and people they do not represent, affecting their jobs, campus security, and more. That does not mean a topic is not important to the community, but it does mean that the topic is inappropriate for a labor contract. The university has repeatedly indicated that it will not negotiate these topics. By Michigan law, continuing to raise them is an unfair labor practice.

As we approach one year of negotiating, only two tentative agreements have been reached and more than 50 contract items remain unresolved. Despite GEO’s rejection of the university’s comprehensive package proposal on Sept. 18, the university is committed to continuing good faith negotiations toward an employment contract that benefits both parties.

Why does U-M reject some of GEO’s proposed language?

U-M has not rejected all of GEO’s proposed language. In labor contract negotiations, one party’s proposal does not necessitate the other party’s acceptance or revision. Both unions and employers may reject each other’s proposals. When a party strikes the other party’s proposed language, it is incumbent on the party making the proposal to develop new language. It is not a responsibility of the receiver of the proposal to help revise the language, which could also be a conflict of interest.

How can labor negotiators reach agreements?

Arriving at mutually acceptable language is quite often aided by conversations between negotiators to better understand the intent of the language and its priority to the union or the employer. GEO has declined to have any small group conversations with U-M negotiators separate from the negotiating table. This posture has added additional barriers to reaching agreements on contract articles.

October 2

U-M and GEO negotiators met for the twenty-fourth negotiations session today.

The university issued a comprehensive package proposal at the last negotiation session on Sept. 18 and therefore did not pass additional proposals today.

GEO confirmed that they reject the university’s comprehensive package proposal. The union continues to present individual proposals.

GEO Proposals

Article IX Training: GEO altered this proposal to remove requiring “Know Your Rights” training, but is still mandating access to relevant materials in multiple languages.
Divestment and Reinvestment: GEO passed these proposals again, unchanged from its original proposals.
- The university reiterated that these are permissive bargaining subjects and declined to discuss the topics.

Negotiations became unproductive as GEO continued to raise the divestment and reinvestment topics after the university reiterated its position on permissive subjects of bargaining. The state mediator ended the session after concluding that an additional joint session would not be helpful.

In addition, the parties met with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) fact-finder on Sept. 24 for a pre-hearing conference. The fact-finder directed U-M and GEO to meet to resolve, define, and narrow the proposals identified in the fact-finding petition and to identify the proposals they agree are mandatory subjects of bargaining and to distinguish them from proposals claimed to be permissive, prohibited, or within the educational sphere.

At the last session on Sept. 18, U-M and GEO agreed to begin weekly negotiation sessions in October. Due to a lack of room availability, the university offered two alternative locations for the Oct. 9 session. GEO declined both alternatives, therefore the next negotiations session is scheduled for Oct. 16.

September 2026

September 18

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their twenty-third negotiations session.

GEO Proposals

DMA Program Funding: GEO proposes that the 12-month funding model for Rackham Ph.D. students expand to include the graduate students enrolled in the School of Music, Theatre, and Dance’s Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) programs. This issue is an academic matter that does not involve terms and conditions of employment and is therefore inappropriate for collective bargaining.

Article 8 Job Security: GEO again proposed multiple contract terms that are academic concerns unrelated to employment, such as: a contractual process for dismissal from academic programs, abolishment of the Office of Student Accountability, and required academic funding and remote work options for all graduate students, regardless of immigration status or location. The university previously advised GEO that it declines to negotiate permissive bargaining subjects such as these.

Transgender Health: In today’s proposal, GEO continues to seek to require via its labor contract that Michigan Medicine restore puberty blockers and hormone therapy care for transgender minors. The union removed many of its previous provisions from this proposal that would have imposed operational and staffing requirements on Michigan Medicine.

International Graduate Workers Assistance Fund: GEO seeks an increase in the current fund from $20,000 per year to $1,000,000 per year and proposes expanded eligibility to all graduate students and expansion of the type of covered expenses.

U-M Proposals

The university presented a comprehensive package proposal, which provides a complete offer on nearly all contract articles. Such proposals are a common part of labor negotiations, especially in advance of fact-finding proceedings.

The Proposal

The move to a comprehensive proposal – along with the university’s request for fact-finding – is intended to advance the negotiations process, which has been ongoing since November 2025 with very little progress and only two tentative agreements on individual contract articles. Agreement on more than 50 other contract articles has yet to be reached after 10 months of bargaining.

The university’s comprehensive package proposal:

Provides a 10% salary increase over a four-year contract (2.5% each year)
Incorporates U-M’s most recent positions on all unresolved articles
Restates that the university declines to negotiate permissive (optional) and illegal bargaining subjects, including topics that impact faculty members’ academic judgment and discretion and those that impact other employees and community members who GEO does not represent.

Pay Package

The university’s comprehensive proposal includes a 10% increase over a four-year contract, 2.5% per year. It reflects annual increases similar to several other employee groups, including Ann Arbor staff members whose 2026-27 annual merit raises averaged 3%.

GEO currently proposes minimum salary increases of 27% over a three-year contract, 9% annually or an amount tied to the Consumer Price Index, whichever percentage is greater. GEO also included a provision for another minimum 9% increase in the 2029-2030 academic year after expiration of the contract, ensuring a fourth-year salary increase of 9% or more without agreeing to a four-year contract.

Topics of Bargaining

Comprehensive proposals such as the one the university presented today are an ordinary part of labor negotiations. The current proposal covers key contract articles and underscores the university’s commitment to good faith negotiations and its interest in sharpening focus on bargainable topics to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for October 2, 2026 and will follow weekly thereafter.

September 4

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their twenty-second negotiation session since November 2025, and the first of the Fall 2026 semester.

The parties reached one tentative agreement regarding Article XVI Changes Resulting in a Conference. The new language better defines the type of changes that may trigger a special conference. The parties have reached only two tentative agreements since negotiations began in November 2025.

In addition, the parties exchanged proposals.

GEO Proposals

Article X Salaries: Four months after receiving the university’s salary proposal, GEO today provided a counterproposal.
- Specifically, GEO’s previous salary proposal was for a three-year agreement with annual salary increases of 12% in year one, 9% in year two, and 9% in year three. Today’s proposal is for a 9% increase in the first year, and 9% in each of years two and three. It adds that if the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is above 9% in any of the contract years, the increase that year would be the higher percentage.
- Today, GEO also proposed to add a 9% increase, or CPI increase, whichever is higher, in the 2029-2030 academic year after expiration of the three-year contract to allow for raises even if a successor agreement is not reached before the end of the term of the 2026-2029 agreement. This proposal attempts to ensure a fourth-year salary increase even if the union does not timely negotiate and ratify a successor agreement in 2029.
- Additionally, GEO proposes to make the Fall 2026-2027 annual increases retroactively effective to the first day of the fall semester.
- Currently, most GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs are appointed at 50% effort, which is equivalent to 16-20 hours per week. Total pay for two, four-month semesters at 50% effort is $29,192 on the Ann Arbor Campus (equivalent to $87,576 full-time annual pay).
Article XI Benefits, New MOU Extension of GradCare Coverage, and New MOU Acupuncture and Dry Needling Coverage. GEO presented these proposals essentially unchanged from their original proposals, showing no movement.
In Article XI Benefits, the union removed its proposal for an international graduate workers’ fund and the fellowship option for birthing parents, on the rationale that they intend to incorporate those proposals into the existing memoranda of understanding (MOU) on Transitional Funding Pilot Program and International Graduate Workers’ Fund.
Article XIV: Grievance and Arbitration Procedures: The proposal was mostly unchanged from GEO’s last version.

U-M Proposals

MOU X Required Disclosure of Felony Charges and/or Convictions: U-M’s proposal maintains the current contract language, while adding GSRAs into the current provision.
MOU First Year Writing Class Size: The university declined GEO’s proposal that would limit the university’s right and responsibility to determine class sizes. This is a management right and a matter of academic judgment for academic units and their faculty.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for September 18. The parties are in the process of selecting a mutually agreeable fact-finder who will conduct an upcoming fact-finding hearing.

August 2026

August 21

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their twenty-first session.

GEO began the session inquiring about SPG 201.05-1 Interim Policy on Domestic and International Remote Work, with questions focused on what factors are considered when analyzing a compelling business need and who has authority to approve remote work requests.

GEO Proposals

Article XIII Leaves of Absence
- Much of GEO’s counterproposal remains unchanged. GEO removed provisions that would dictate changes to Rackham’s student (i.e., not employment-related) leaves of absence as they proposed those in a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June.
Graduate Student Staff Assistants (GSSAs) for Public Discourse and Dialogue, GSSAs for Disability Culture and Accessibility, and GSSAs for Gender Affirming Care Accessibility and Trans Inclusivity
- These proposals are largely unchanged from GEO’s last proposal with added clarification on the function of the positions.
International Graduate Student Training
- GEO proposed this article without changing the current contract language. However, because this article implicates a separate appendix regarding Policy for Graduate Students with NonEnglish Medium Undergraduate Backgrounds Who Seek GSI Positions in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, which the union has proposed changes to, the parties have not yet come to agreement.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Data Rights, and Intellectual Property
- GEO’s latest proposal remains largely unchanged from the previous one. Most of the union’s changes involve timelines for notification of changes to policies involving AI and new technology.

U-M Proposals

Payroll Deduction of Union Dues
- The university’s counterproposal declines GEO’s proposed language that would automatically deduct dues from any graduate student research assistant (GSRA) who signed a unionization card and would also remove the university’s ability to stop payroll deduction of dues in the event of a job action.

The next session is scheduled for September 4, 2026.

August 14

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their twentieth negotiation session.

The parties discussed multiple issues, including:

Salary proposal: With only one negotiation session left before the start of the Fall 2026 semester, U-M inquired when GEO would present a counterproposal to the university’s salary proposal presented on May 1. GEO stated they would discuss the issue and will respond to the inquiry via email.
September 2026 payroll advances for employees: The current U-M/GEO collective bargaining agreement (CBA) does not provide for paycheck advances beyond the Fall 2025 term. Since a successor CBA has yet to be agreed upon, and no schedule is set forth in the 2023-2026 agreement, the university is not accepting requests for payroll advances at this time.
Today, GEO requested that the university agree to a letter that would allow payroll advances for Fall 2026 even though no contract language has been agreed upon. The university declined the union’s request and explained that it would not provide pay check advances until GEO and U-M reach a successor CBA. The university explained that its Salary proposal, which was presented on May 1 includes provisions for payroll advances. GEO has not yet responded to that proposal.
Union Dues Deduction Form: U-M inquired about GEO’s dues deduction proposal that would allow graduate student research assistants (GSRA) union representation cards to constitute authorization for dues deductions. GEO provided U-M with a copy of the form for the university’s consideration.

In addition to these discussions, the parties exchanged several proposals.

GEO Proposals

GEO reverted its counterproposals for Class Sizes and Curriculum to its originally proposed language from April 2026. The university maintains these two issues are matters of academic judgment and discretion.

Class Sizes
- GEO’s proposal would create a contractual class size policy for the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, (LSA), including:
  - A maximum student to graduate student instructor (GSI) ratio of 60:1,
  - a low-enrollment course policy, and
  - prohibit canceling low-enrolled courses that do not meet that threshold.
Curriculum
- GEO’s proposal would require departments to have graduate student assistant (GSA) representation on committees dealing with undergraduate curriculum and/or educational innovation. Employee participation on these committees would be included in employees’ workloads.
- It would allow employees to decline or refuse a teaching and/or research assignment without providing a reason, at any point prior to the start of the academic term, or during the term if the material conditions of the assignment change. The department would be required to provide the employee with a new position, or may request funding through the Transitional Funding Program (TFP).
- GEO’s proposal would mandate that no employee shall be required to use, endorse, promote, or rely upon specific content, materials, methods, or technologies where doing so conflicts with the employee’s pedagogical judgment, ethical commitments, or political, moral, or professional standards.
Childcare
- GEO’s counter proposal shows little movement and would significantly change the current Childcare Subsidy Award provided to all students through the Office of Financial Aid.
  - The proposal continues to create a contractual requirement that the university build a new childcare center and create a new after school program.
  - While GEO acknowledges that the university’s ability to do both before the Fall 2026 semester is unlikely, they propose a special conference during the 2026-2027 academic year to come to an agreement upon the deadline to accomplish both.
- The university continues to maintain that the Childcare Subsidy Award is a benefit for all students and, therefore, the terms and conditions of that award should not be negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement that includes only a portion of the students eligible for it.

U-M Proposals

Anti-discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity
- U-M’s counterproposal strikes GEO’s language that is already covered under the Employee Rights - Privacy article.
Changes Resulting in a Special Conference
- There continues to be little language that is in dispute in Articles IV and XVI. However, the university declines the union’s proposed language that is overly broad and ambiguous and would significantly change current policies and practices. It could also potentially create a substantial burden on the university, schools and colleges.
Employee Rights
- GEO proposed considerable new language to Article XXI Employee Rights. The current article includes 12 provisions and, under GEO’s proposal, would expand to 28 provisions. Much of the union’s proposed language in this article involves permissive or illegal subjects of bargaining, which the university informed GEO in May that U-M will not negotiate.
- In addition, many of the other provisions directly conflict with current university policies including the Policy on Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct and Standard Practice Guide and university Policy on Intellectual Property and Commercialization.
- Multiple proposed provisions would expand current university policies and impact employees and students who are not in the GEO bargaining unit.
- Therefore, the university declined the majority of GEO’s proposed provisions in their entirety and reverted others to current contract language or proposed language that has been included in other academic agreements.

The next negotiation session is scheduled for August 21, 2026 and two sessions are scheduled for September. GEO indicated they are willing to resume weekly sessions starting in October.

July 2026

July 31

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their nineteenth negotiation session. This is the first session after the university filed its fact finding petition with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission.

GEO inquired about the Department of Homeland Security's new regulations changing the admission period in the F, J, and I classifications, and additional changes to admission and extension requirements. GEO focused its questions, and the conversation, on how the university will, or will not, implement the new regulations as it relates to student status and not wages, hours, and working conditions. The university acknowledges the importance of this issue, but since it relates to graduate students as students and not employees, labor negotiations is not the appropriate place to discuss this topic.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented proposals and counter proposals on:

Article IV: Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment
Article XVI: Changes Resulting in a Conference
Article V: Payroll Deduction of Union Dues
- This article had not previously been opened
- GEO’s proposal includes a provision that would automatically deduct dues from any graduate student research assistant (GSRA) who signed a unionization card, as well as a provision that would remove U-M’s ability to stop payroll deduction of dues in the event of a job action

U-M Proposals

U-M presented proposals on:

Article [new] Working Hours and Workload
- Clarified language around grading sessions and work-related meetings as well as removing some of the restrictions on units on scheduling work-related meetings
- Struck language that defines GSRA labor by directly linking GSRA work to research done outside of course credit enrollment, mandates employees not be required to report their working hours unless required by external funding agencies, gives employees the discretion to work remotely, and provides four weeks of vacation time yearly, with rollover of unused time
Article XIX Employee Training
- Struck language on:
  - Mandatory Know Your Rights training each semester for faculty, lecturers, administrative staff and representatives, and departmental leaders
  - Developing and funding de-escalation training in consultation with GEO and independent of any law-enforcement agency.

The next session is scheduled for August 14, 2026.

July 28

After 18 negotiation sessions over nearly nine months, U-M and GEO have reached only one tentative agreement and more than 50 issues remain on the table. Many of the outstanding issues are permissive bargaining subjects, which are optional topics that require the agreement of both parties to discuss.

The unresolved issues include GEO proposals that are not terms and conditions of employment or are otherwise matters that are not properly resolved through labor contract negotiations. These include:

Divestment - The union’s proposal would require the university’s “divestment,” which GEO defines as removing U-M investments tied to military operations, mass surveillance, or entities implicated in human rights violations.
Reinvestment - The union’s proposal would require the university’s investment strategy, purchasing practices, and international institutional relationships to align with requirements of GEO’s collective bargaining agreement, such as restricting academic and cultural engagement, imposing institutional boycotts, and subjecting investment decisions to external oversight and campus-wide votes.
ICE off campus - GEO’s proposal would create university obligations that are inappropriate for collective bargaining, such as:
- restrict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on campus;
- require the university to notify GEO if ICE is present on campus;
- prohibit partnership with federal immigration agencies;
- restrict ICE access to private spaces; and
- prohibit U‑M employees, contractors, and agents from voluntarily assisting or facilitating immigration enforcement activity on any U‑M property unless legally required.
Probation and Dismissal - GEO’s proposal aims to govern academic discretion and judgement in academic standing and degree progress. It would enact restrictions on when a graduate student can be placed on probation and dictate the process to dismiss a graduate student from an academic program. These are outside the scope of wages, hours, and working conditions of employees.
Student Disciplinary Charges - GEO’s proposal would abolish the Office of Student Accountability (OSA) and make sweeping changes to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR). These offices deal with academic matters, not employment matters.
Restrictions on DPSS and UMPD - GEO’s proposal would impact the University of Michigan Police Department (UMPD) and Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS) and would illegally impact the wages, hours, and working conditions of at least two other bargaining units.
“Institutional Accountability, Transparency, and Responsibilities to Oppose Federal Government Changes to Immigration Policies” - GEO’s proposal would require the university to take formal public, legislative, and political advocacy positions regarding federal immigration policy and related governmental actions. The language extends beyond employment-related matters by prescribing institutional lobbying, coalition participation, public policy advocacy, and communications obligations in response to federal legislative and administrative activity.

The university has communicated to GEO that many of these subjects are permissive bargaining subjects that do not relate to wages, hours, and working conditions. Many of GEO’s issues impact much larger groups in the university community and are not matters that can be resolved through collective bargaining.

Multiple mandatory bargaining subjects remain unresolved, and salary continues to be the most significant outstanding mandatory bargaining issue. The union’s initial salary proposal, which it submitted on April 24, called for annual increases of 12%, 9%, and 9%, or 30% in total. For additional information on previous collective bargaining agreements, see Key Features of Past GEO Contracts. The university presented its initial counterproposal on May 1, which included a 1.5% increase each year for a four-year agreement. The union has not subsequently presented a counter-proposal on salary since then.

Due to the slow pace of negotiations to date and the significant number of outstanding issues, the university asked the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to engage the parties in the fact-finding process.

Provost Laurie McCauley’s message sent to university faculty July 28 describes how fact-finding supports the bargaining process for unions and employers in the State of Michigan by assisting parties in resolving complicated issues.

Without a new collective bargaining agreement, Graduate Student Instructors, Graduate Student Services Assistants, and Graduate Student Research Assistants do not receive salary increases for the 2026-2027 academic year. The university remains committed to achieving a sustainable collective bargaining agreement that benefits both the university and GEO in a timely fashion.

July 17

U-M and GEO negotiators met for their eighteenth negotiations session today. The state mediator was present.

Key highlights of the session include:

GEO inquired whether the university will raise GSI, GSSA, and GSRA salary rates for the Fall 2026 semester, if no successor collective bargaining agreement is reached by then. The university conveyed that, at this time, the university does not intend to impact wages if no successor agreement is reached before the beginning of the semester.
GEO presented multiple testimonials from individuals who are not graduate students on subjects not related to negotiations.
The parties are nearing a tentative agreement (TA) regarding GEO’s proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Summer Benefits, which the university accepted with no changes. However, GEO must first secure a vote among its members before signing the TA.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented the following proposals and counterproposals:

“Package proposal on Graduate Student Staff Assistant (GSSA) for Access”: GEO proposes that U-M create 10 GSSA positions for the purposes of “Public Discourse and Dialogue,” “Disability Culture and Accessibility,” and “Gender Affirming Care Accessibility and Trans Inclusivity.”
“Protection Against Campus Ban”: GEO proposes language that would prohibit U-M from “banning” any employee(s) from campus, including restricting access to university property and reversing “all campus bans that have been issued since October 23, 2023.” It also requires the university to refrain from assisting law enforcement, courts, or third parties in obtaining such restrictions on bargaining unit members’ access to campus.

U-M Proposals

U-M presented the following proposals and counterproposals:

GEO’s proposed new article regarding Parking and Transportation: U-M declined the entirety of GEO’s proposal because it is overly broad and would provide benefits and services beyond what is provided to other students or employees, such as:
- Free Orange permits;
- Guaranteed parking spot availability;
- Unlimited reimbursement for "any transportation related to an employee's role";
- Up to $250 per academic term for bicycle purchases, maintenance, repairs, accessories, parking, storage, and safety equipment; and
- Additional contractual obligations related to bus routes, service frequency, accessibility, reliability, bicycling infrastructure, late-night transportation, and transportation for employees with disabilities.
Article XXII Policies and Procedures for Employees with Disabilities: U-M’s counter proposal suggests mostly minor changes to the union’s last proposal. In addition, the university declined GEO’s proposed addition of an “appeal process” for accommodation requests determined to be unreasonable, which is not something included in the Americans with Disabilities Act or other applicable laws.

The next session is scheduled for July 31, 2026. The parties are working to schedule additional sessions for August and September. The university desires to meet weekly, but GEO has not committed to doing so.

June 2026

June 26

U-M and GEO negotiators resumed talks today after a two-week break. This marked the seventeenth negotiation session. GEO elected to adjourn the session approximately an hour and a half earlier than scheduled.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented only one proposal today, despite previously indicating they would present five proposals.

Felony Disclosure: GEO’s proposal strikes the requirement for graduate student assistants (GSAs) to disclose felony charges or convictions. GEO also seeks to be informed if an employee discloses a felony charge or conviction, but, in the interest of privacy, not the disclosing employee’s identity. (This latter provision mirrors other academic labor contracts.)
GEO did not propose the articles for Summer Benefits, Job Postings, Changes Resulting in a Conference, or Payroll Deductions as indicated in the parties’ joint agenda.

U-M Proposals

U-M presented the following proposals and counterproposals:

Job Security: GEO’s initial Job Security proposal includes multiple permissive bargaining subjects such as:
- requiring the university to maintain SEVIS and I-20 status for students.
- providing “funding security” for international, undocumented, and DACA graduate students,
- “post-graduation support” for graduates, and
- provisions about student discipline.
As a result, the university declined the union’s proposal because it involves matters pertaining to student (not employment) status, or matters outside the scope of terms and conditions of employment for graduate student workers. The university declines to negotiate proposal provisions and/or sections that are not mandatory bargaining subjects that do not have a substantial or material impact on the wages, hours, or working conditions of GEO bargaining unit members.
- The university proposed movement on other parts of this article that do not involve permissive bargaining subjects.
Union Rights: GEO’s proposal has multiple permissive components and other parts that affect the university's ability to manage operations and would directly impact Lecturers’ instructional work, which the university declines.
Anti-Discrimination: GEO’s proposed language limits the university's ability to provide dues deduction information with the federal government, which the university declines.
Special Conference: Multiple parts of this article remain unresolved including the requirement that any special conference result in a written agreement. A special conference is intended to be a conversation between the parties to discuss pertinent matters and is not intended to result in a written agreement each time the parties meet. The university declined this proposal because it would result in the contract never being settled; under GEO’s proposal, every issue could be reopened and require a written agreement to resolve.

The parties discussed August and September negotiation session dates, but GEO did not commit to meeting more than every other week during those months.

The next scheduled session is July 17, 2026.

June 12, 2026

U-M and GEO negotiators did not meet today, even though they had been scheduled to do so.

On June 9, 2026, GEO informed the university that, due to unforeseen circumstances, they did not have sufficient members of their bargaining team available to proceed with negotiations on June 12. The union requested to adjourn negotiations until June 26 and the university agreed. The parties will remain in communication via email about related matters in the interim.

June 5, 2026

After a two-week break, U-M and GEO negotiators met today for the sixteenth negotiations session. Of the 26 articles in the current contract, 21 are open for negotiations with proposed changes.

GEO Proposals

GEO’s proposals include:

Article TBD: Transportation and Parking
- GEO proposes free orange parking and the university to cover all costs associated with transportation in and around campus.
- GEO’s proposal would determine parking and transportation operations and require the university to notify the union about changes including but not limited to bus routes, services frequency, and bicycle infrastructure.
- GEO seeks a $250 bicycle-related expense reimbursement.
Article XV: Special Conferences
- The union’s counter proposal shows positive movement, but U-M remains concerned about the number of individuals allowed to attend special conferences.
New MOU: First-Year Writing Class Size
- GEO’s proposal would require LSA to maintain class caps for First Year English courses and lower the enrollment threshold for course cancellations.
New MOU: Rackham Leaves of Absence Policy
- This proposed MOU would incorporate all Rackham student academic leaves into the GEO contract.

U-M Proposals

The university presented the following counter proposals:

Article I Recognition
- U-M agreed to add GSRAs under the definition that was agreed upon for the accretion petition.
- U-M declined the union’s proposed changes to the definition of “in good standing” and declined to make the definition and administration of “good standing" grievable under the contract.
Article III No Interference
- U-M aims to maintain much of the current contract language, but did agree to some of GEO’s proposed changes.
NEW Article AI, Data Rights and Intellectual Property
- U-M declined the entirety of GEO’s proposal because it is overly broad, and lacking definition, and it would impede academic and administrative functions. Further, much of the language conflicts with existing legal obligations, university policies, and established practices, and extends beyond appropriate subjects of bargaining.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for June 12, 2026. U-M and GEO also agreed to meet on June 26, July 17 and July 31.

May 2026

May 15

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for the fifteenth negotiations session since November 2025. The state-appointed mediator attended.

As it has with its other academic bargaining units, the university informed GEO in writing that the two-year pilot program for immigration legal services for faculty, staff, and students can apply to their members, if GEO agrees to have the benefit apply.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented the following proposals:

A New memorandum of understanding (MOU):
- Would guarantee six years of funding for graduate students in all doctoral programs covered under Rackham's 12-Month Funding Plan.
Article I: Recognition and Definitions
- Would add the GSRAs as defined in accretion election to the Recognition Clause.
- Would change the definition of academic “in good standing” from Rackham’s discretion and would allow the employing units to determine whether a graduate student’s GPA meets or exceeds a program’s requirement.
- Would allow determinations of academic “good standing” to be grievable under the union grievance procedure.
Article III: No Interference
- Would allow employees to participate in a strike with approval from “a superior.”
- Would prohibit the university from filing an injunction if a strike happens.
- Would prohibit the university from stopping payroll dues deduction if a strike happens.
Article XIX: Employee Training
- Would require training for employees assigned to Camp Davis, including:
  - Paying for a GSI who does not have a driver’s license to obtain one
  - Defensive driver training
  - Special vehicle training
  - Wilderness first aid training
- Immigration Education and Training
  - Would require U-M to hold a minimum of two “Know Your Rights” training events per academic year.
  - Would require mandatory training for faculty, lecturers, administrative staff and department leadership on immigration rights and protections.
  - Would require U-M to consult GEO about all curricula for the training programs.
- De-escalation training for GEO bargaining unit members
  - Would require training at least once per year, done independently of law enforcement.
  - Would require U-M to consult with GEO on the development, selection, and review of training materials.

U-M Proposals

The University presented two proposal packages:

Package A: Declines many of GEO’s proposed changes that deviate significantly from current benefits plans. This package proposal also combines multiple benefits-related memoranda of understanding into the Benefits article.
- Article XI Benefits
  - Added GSRAs into the Benefits article as status quo
  - Struck dental 2 and 3 and vision with no employee premium
  - Struck GEO’s proposal for additional services that are not covered under our health and dental plans, including doula support and adult orthodontics
  - Struck GEO’s proposed article on Financial Support and Legal Support for International Graduate Workers
  - Incorporates into the Benefits article existing MOUs:
    - MOU 18 - Reproductive Healthcare Coverage
    - MOU 16 - Mental Health Co-pays
    - MOU 17 - Physical Therapy Copayments
  - MOU 23 - International Graduate Workers Assistance Fund
    - Would renew the fund for the next term of the contract under the same terms.
Package B: Transgender Health Concerns
- Proposes a new article to cover Transgender Health Concerns
  - Would move current MOUs into one article:
    - MOU 11 - Speech Therapy for Treatment
    - MOU 12 - Laser Hair Removal
    - MOU 13 - Expanded Coverage of Gender Affirming Care
    - MOU 14 - Gender Affirming Care In-Network
  - Declines GEO’s proposal that would require Michigan Medicine to reinstate all care for transgender minors under 19 years old.
  - Declines GEO’s proposal to provide 100% coverage for all gender-affirming care provided by in-network providers and 70% coverage for out-of-network care.
  - Declines GEO’s proposal mandating a policy for university psychiatric emergency services; representation on the Advisory Board for university healthcare; and restrictions on Michigan Medicine’s sharing of patients’ Protected Health Information.

The University also declined GEO’s proposals that would:

Require a GSSA appointment in Michigan Medicine’s Comprehensive Gender Services Program;
Require the hiring of surgeons and other professionals at Michigan Medicine;
Require a joint statement from the university and GEO declaring support for gender-affirming care for minors and committing to preserving gender affirming care for patients over 18 years old;
Require GradCare coverage to start on July 1 for any newly enrolled or incoming graduate student and continue GradCare coverage for 4.5 months past the end date of any appointment; and
Require GradCare to cover acupuncture, dry needling and massage therapy.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for June 5, 2026. U-M and GEO will continue scheduling discussions for future sessions via email.

May 8

By mutual agreement, U-M and GEO negotiators did not have an in-person negotiations session scheduled today.

To keep negotiations moving forward, the university communicated in writing to GEO that its “ICE Off Campus,” “Divestment” and “Reinvestment” proposals are permissive or illegal bargaining subjects and, accordingly, the university declines to negotiate them. Similarly, the university informed GEO that many of the provisions in its “Job Security” and “Employee Rights” proposals are also permissive or illegal and otherwise infringe on the rights and terms and conditions of others whom GEO does not represent. Examples of such provisions include:

Entirety of the Proposal:

Divestment
- The proposal defines “divestment” as removing U-M investments tied to military operations, mass surveillance, or entities implicated in human rights violations.
- GEO seeks to obligate the university to screen all potential investments to ensure they do not support military activity, surveillance, or violations of international law.
- It would create a third-party body with authority to review, challenge, and publicly debate investments, with unresolved disputes escalated to a university-wide vote.
Reinvestment
- GEO seeks to determine how the university distributes annual returns from its long-term investment portfolio and to direct the university to boycott certain cultural institutions, products, and other academic institutions.
- The union’s proposal would insert the collective bargaining agreement into the university’s investment strategy, purchasing practices, and international institutional relationships. This includes restricting academic and cultural engagement, imposing institutional boycotts, and subjecting investment decisions to external oversight and campus-wide votes.
ICE off campus (standalone proposal that was later incorporated as a section of Article XXI)
- Restrict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on campus;
- Require the university to notify GEO if ICE is present on campus, prohibit partnership with federal immigration agencies and restrict ICE access to private spaces; and
- Prohibit U‑M employees, contractors, and agents from voluntarily assisting or facilitating immigration enforcement activity on any U‑M property unless legally required.

Provisions of Proposal:

Article VI Union Rights
- New Section H - with regard to the wages, hours and working conditions of lecturers only
  - This proposal would prohibit the university from assigning work to lecturers if it resulted in a total decrease of more than 1% of GSI, GSSA, and GSRAs. The university cannot negotiate terms of employment of employees of a different bargaining unit.
Article VIII Job Security/Employment
- Section B. Probation and Dismissal (subsection)
  - This provision governs academic standing and degree progress, placing restrictions on when a graduate student can be placed on probation and dictates the process to dismiss a graduate student from an academic program, which is outside the scope of wages, hours, and working conditions of employees.
- Section H: Maintenance of SEVIS and I-20 Status
  - GEO’s proposal would prohibit the university from canceling, terminating, shortening, or otherwise altering the SEVIS record of a graduate student. SEVIS records are matters of federal law compliance. Additionally, this provision would apply to all graduate students, not limited to bargaining unit employees who are represented by GEO.
- Section I: Employment and Funding Security for International, Undocumented, and DACA Graduate Students - Subsection (1), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11)
  - The majority of the cited sections apply to academic status. Additionally, federal law requirements for work authorization supersede labor contracts.
- Section J: Work Authorization, OPT/CPT Support, and Post Graduation Support
  - Creates requirements for visa sponsorship for international students for positions outside of the bargaining unit including staff administrative positions, postdoctoral positions, or lecturer positions.
- Section K: Student Disciplinary Charges
  - Abolishes the Office of Student Accountability (OSA) and makes sweeping changes to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR), both offices that deal with academic matters and not matters of employment.
Article XXI Employee Rights
- Section D. Office and Building Access
  - Requires access to classrooms and office space for children of employees as well as other people and parties GEO does not represent. Also governs access to public spaces that are not governed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Section L. Immigration and Support for the International Center - Subsections (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7)
  - Broadly impacts university operations that are not related to the wages, hours and working conditions of bargaining unit members including dictating the operations of the International Center and its staffing.
- Section Y. Restrictions on DPSS & UMPD
  - Abolishes the University of Michigan Police Department (UMPD) and Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS) and would illegally impact the wages, hours, and working conditions of at least two other bargaining units.
- Section Z: Establishment of an Unarmed, Non-Police Crisis Response
  - This proposal would require the university to establish, fund, and bargain over a campus-wide unarmed crisis response program. The proposal also extends into operational, staffing, training, policy, and reporting matters that are broader than the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit members.
- Section AA: Visiting Scholars Protections
  - Requires notice to non-student, non-employees about GEO that does not, and cannot, legally represent them.
- Section AB: Institutional Accountability, Transparency, and Responsibilities to Oppose Federal Government Changes to Immigration Policies
  - The union’s proposal would require the university to take formal public, legislative, and political advocacy positions regarding federal immigration policy and related governmental actions.
  - The language extends beyond employment-related matters by prescribing institutional lobbying, coalition participation, public policy advocacy, and communications obligations in response to federal legislative and administrative activity.

Many of these issues are of significant importance and may affect a broad range of constituencies across the university community and beyond. Such matters are not appropriately or effectively addressed in a labor agreement that covers only a small segment of employees.

The university remains committed to bargaining in good faith on terms and conditions of employment for GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs. For issues beyond the scope of labor contract negotiations, the university supports constructive dialogue through other appropriate venues.

The next negotiation session is scheduled for May 15, 2026.

May 1

University and GEO negotiators met today for their final scheduled negotiations session of the Winter 2026 semester. Additional sessions will be scheduled over the Spring and Summer terms.

GEO devoted two hours of today’s session to “open bargaining” during which several community members spoke about topics important to them.

GEO Proposals

The union presented five proposals. In brief, key elements include:

Article 8: Job Security
- GEO proposes that if “...a student is dismissed from their academic program, the student will be provided with a written summary of the reasons for the dismissal at the written request of the student. The employee shall be able to appeal a verdict of dismissal.” It also proposes that pay and benefits would continue even if an employee is dismissed from the graduate degree program.
- GEO proposes that U-M abolish the Office of Student Accountability.
Article 21: Employee Rights
- GEO seeks to abolish the U-M Police Department and Division of Public Safety and Security; “discontinue enforcement of reservations to use public spaces”; ensure employees and their children have access to classroom spaces; and determine staffing levels for the International Center.
Article 29: Reinvestment (New Article)
- GEO seeks to determine how the university distributes annual returns from its long-term investment portfolio and to direct the university to boycott certain cultural institutions, products, and other academic institutions.
Article 30: Working Hours and Workload (New Article)
- GEO proposes that employees not be required to report their working hours to their advisor, department, unit or employer, unless required by external funding agencies and that employees have the right and discretion to complete any and all work in a location of their choosing, except when the employee’s physical presence in a predefined location is required.
- GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs receive four (4) weeks of vacation time yearly, with rollover of unused time.
MOU 10: Required Disclosure of Felony Charges and/or Felony Convictions
- GEO proposes that GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs not be required to disclose felony charges and/or convictions under SPG 601.38.

U-M Proposals

The university presented five proposals:

Article IX Job Postings, Distribution of Postings, Notification, and Hiring Procedures
- U-M’s revisions are designed to reduce ambiguity and improve readability.
- U-M’s proposal would end full compensation guarantee if the university needs to change employment or offer no employment after extending a written offer, but before the employment term starts.
Article X Salaries
- The university proposes a four-year term of agreement with an annual salary increase of 1.5% each year of the contract.
- U-M’s proposal would add a maintenance of status quo salary provision for GSRAs in which the appointing unit determines the employee’s employment fraction.
Article XIII Leaves of Absence
- U-M declined GEO’s proposal that would extend medical leave with pay for up to one year; allow remote work and modified duties in certain circumstances; provide six weeks of “immigration leave”; expand bereavement leave to 14 days; and incorporate Rackham’s Leave of Absence policy and Rackham’s Leave of Absence for Personal Reasons policy, which are student academic policies, as employment terms and conditions.
Article XX Tuition
- The university proposed adding GSRAs into the article at status quo, which provides GSRAs with a full tuition waiver for appointment fractions of 25% and higher.

April 2026

April 24

U-M and GEO negotiators met for their thirteenth negotiations session today.

Incorporating GSRAs into the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The university agreed to GEO’s preferred approach for incorporating Graduate Student Research Assistants (GSRAs) into the agreement in an effort to advance discussions efficiently and to encourage a sustained focus on substantive contract issues.

To that end, the university resubmitted three article proposals and four Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) proposals from the 17 the university originally submitted in November 2025 and which GEO has not yet responded to. These resubmitted proposals incorporate the GSRAs in full where possible and in part where sections need to be negotiated to apply specifically for GSRAs.

The resubmitted proposals include:

VIII Job Security
XIX Employee Training
XXI Employee Rights
MOU I. Work Life Resources
MOU III. FMLA Compliance
MOU IV. Lactation Accommodations
MOU VI. Continuation of Dues Authorization

The university also presented Article XXII Past Practice and MOU VII E-Signatures. In both cases, the parties reached functional agreements in March, but did not finalize them while discussions about GSRA accretion took place.

GEO Proposals

Article 4: Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment
- The union revised its proposal on the one remaining issue in this article about providing union membership data to the federal government.
Article 6: Union Rights
- The union proposed that the total number of GSI, GSSA, and GSRA positions shall not be reduced by more than 1% of the total number of GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs from the corresponding academic term the year prior. In addition, this proposal would prohibit the university from assigning work to Instructional Aides, Graders, or Lecturers.
Article 22: Policies and Procedures for People with Disabilities
- The union’s revisions aim to more closely align the policy to the student accommodation policy.
New article: Article 28: Divestment
- The union’s proposal would define “divestment” as removing U-M investments tied to military operations, mass surveillance, or entities implicated in human rights violations. It would require extensive public disclosure of endowment funds and mandate seven days’ public notice before any new investment.
- The union seeks to obligate the university to screen all potential investments to ensure they do not support military activity, surveillance, or violations of international law.
- It would create a third-party body with authority to review, challenge, and publicly debate investments, with unresolved disputes escalated to a university-wide vote. It would also require termination of any investments indirectly or directly connected to global human rights violations or systemic violence and bar relationships with companies tied to weapons, surveillance, or displacement, and prohibits investment in specified companies and certain financial instruments.

U-M Counter Proposals

XIV Grievance and Arbitration
- GEO’s proposal would give the union the power to grieve, and take to binding arbitration, matters of academic judgment and the decisions by departments/schools/colleges on whether a graduate student is “in good standing” in their degree program.
- The university’s perspective is that this would allow a third-party, outside arbitrator to usurp the unit’s judgment and discretion on academic matters. Therefore, U-M rejected the union’s overreach into faculty members’ and graduate programs' academic decision-making.
- GEO’s proposal also added an additional step in the grievance procedure that would require establishing a department committee that would issue a non-binding recommendation for resolution of each grievance.
- U-M rejected the additional step because, in its perspective, it would add little value by inserting an informal step into a formal process, therefore delaying the resolution for the employee and university.
XV Special Conferences
- GEO proposed that all Special Conferences, which are traditionally used for the parties to meet and confer on topics of mutual interest, would be required to result in bargaining and an eventual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties. Additionally, GEO proposed that all Special Conferences be open to all members.
- U-M rejected this proposal because it would create an open-ended contract that would require bargaining for any issue that GEO presented, effectively leaving the university and union in a perpetual state of negotiations and preventing any informal resolution of concerns that do not require an MOU. U-M also rejected the union’s language to allow any member to attend because special conferences often are held on issues specific to one individual or a small group of individuals. It would be inappropriate and ineffective to hold those conversations in a public forum.
XVII Class Size
- GEO’s proposal would require a contractual class size policy for the School of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) and restrict the School’s ability to determine operational needs, specifically the cancellation of low-enrollment courses. Therefore, U-M rejected the proposal as overreaching into the university’s and LSA’s operations.
XVIII Curriculum
- GEO’s proposal requires that departments have a GSI, GSSA, or GSRA on any committee dealing with undergraduate curricula and/or educational innovation. U-M rejected this proposal, maintaining that curriculum is the purview of the faculty.
New MOU DMAs
- The university rejected this proposal because the Doctorate of Musical Arts (DMA) program and degree is within the purview of Rackham Graduate School and is not a matter of employment terms and conditions.

Regarding GEO’s proposal about academic freedom, the parties discussed that the Lecturers' Employee Organization (LEO) contract includes an academic freedom article because Lecturers are faculty members, while GSIs, GSSAs, and GSRAs are not faculty members.

The next session is scheduled for May 1, 2026. It is the last scheduled session for the 2025-2026 academic year.

April 17

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their twelfth bargaining session and the mediator attended.

Incorporation of GSRAs

The parties continued discussing the process for accreting Graduate Student Research Assistants (GSRAs) into the bargaining unit. At the union’s request, the university presented a written proposal to begin the process, which includes both parties identifying which articles would need to be addressed specifically for GSRA employment terms and conditions.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented one new article, proposals for three current articles, and four new memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Most of GEO’s proposals centered on benefits and transgender healthcare.

In addition, GEO proposed a “Curriculum” article that would significantly expand GSIs’ control over course content and would enable GSIs to decline work if they disagree with the primary instructor or the course content. Elements of the proposal include:

Bargaining unit members must be consulted and must grant written permission prior to the dissemination of any pedagogical or research work produced by them, including but not limited to course materials, websites, lectures, discussion section recordings, or notes.
Bargaining unit members may decline or refuse a teaching and/or research assignment at any point prior to the start of the academic term, or during the term if the material conditions of the assignment change.
Bargaining unit members may decline assignments without stating or providing a reason. If they do decline an assignment, then the department must provide the employee with a new position, and may avail itself of the provisions of the Transitional Funding Program (TFP).
Bargaining unit members may not be required to use, endorse, promote, or rely upon specific content, materials, methods, or technologies where doing so conflicts with their pedagogical judgment; ethical commitments; political, moral, or professional standards.
No graduate worker shall be required to prepare or provide letters of recommendation, character references, or employment references for any student. Refusal to write a letter of recommendation shall not be the basis for retaliation, negative evaluation, or action by the employer.

Key points of GEO’s other proposals are:

Article XXVIII: Care for Transgender Employees
- Includes multiple provisions that are not terms and conditions of employment for the GEO bargaining unit and would determine operations and decisions at Michigan Medicine, such as:
  - Restoration of puberty blockers and hormone therapy care for transgender minors.
  - Changes to inpatient rooming policies of the University’s Psychiatric Emergency Service.
  - Designating a GEO representative to the Internal Advisory Board at Michigan Medicine for policy changes which may affect transgender employees and their dependents.
  - Give Employees who are undergoing gender-reassignment surgery one semester of fellowship funding, tuition waiver, GradCare and other benefits.
MOU: Gender Affirming Care Accessibility
- Require Michigan Medicine to employ: an additional plastic surgeon to perform Facial Feminization Surgeries, an additional plastic surgeon to perform masculinizing gender-affirming chest surgery, and an electrolysis provider at the Michigan Medicine Cosmetic Dermatology Clinic.
MOU: Support for Gender Affirming Care
- Require the university to release, in collaboration with GEO, a joint statement supporting gender-affirming care for minors and committing to preserve Gender Affirming Care for patients over 18.
MOU to Expand GradCare coverage beginning July 1 for new students.
MOU to extend Acupuncture and Dry Needling Coverage under GradCare.
Article XI: Benefits
- GEO seeks a $1 million per year financial support and legal support fund for international graduate workers fund for administrative fees, legal fees, bond fees, travel and accommodation expenses.
- Coverage for home births, doulas, and midwives as well as fellowship for employees who give birth.
- Coverage for orthodontics for adults at the same levels as those provided for those under 18 years old.
Article XX: Tuition Waiver: GEO seeks to apply the tuition waiver benefit to GSRAs.

U-M Proposals

In light of the ongoing discussions about how to incorporate GSRAs, U-M did not present counter proposals today because its remaining proposals directly impact GSRA appointments in ways that are distinct from Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) and Graduate Student Staff Assistant (GSSA) appointments.

The next session will be Friday, April 24, 2026.

April 10

U-M and GEO negotiators met today for their eleventh bargaining session.

Incorporating GSRAs into the GEO Contract

The parties continued discussing how to incorporate Graduate Student Research Assistants into the current terms and conditions of the GEO contract, but did not yet come to an agreement.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented the following proposals:

Article X: Salary. GEO proposed annual salary increases for all three campuses:
- AY 2026-2027 - 12%
- AY 2027-2028 - 9%
- AY 2028-2029 - 9%
- GEO has not proposed parity in the minimum salaries for all three campuses, so Ann Arbor would continue to have a higher minimum salary than Flint and Dearborn.
- GEO seeks expansion of fees that the university will pay or waive, including: elimination of the international student fee for graduate students; university-paid I-20/DS-2019 fees; and university-paid visa application and renewal fees.
Article XXVII: AI, Data Rights, and Intellectual Property. GEO submitted a proposal for a new article that would enable bargaining unit members the right to refuse AI in curriculum and research; guarantee bargaining unit member job stability and availability; and protect intellectual property.
Article XIV: Grievance and Arbitration. GEO proposes allowing arbitrators to determine matters of “academic judgement” and “good standing" and allowing all GEO members to attend arbitration hearings.
Inclusion of Doctor of Musical Arts (DMAs) in the Rackham Summer Plan. GEO seeks to include graduate students in the Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) programs in the School of Music, Theatre, and Dance (SMTD) in the 12-month funding model for Rackham Ph.D. students.

U-M Proposals

U-M presented four counter proposals:

Article VII: Information. U-M rejected GEO’s proposal that would add overly burdensome requirements to create data reports that the university does not have or maintain.
Article XII: Child Care. U-M rejected the union’s removal of all eligibility requirements for the Office of Financial Aid (OFA) Child Care Subsidy Program and declined the following elements of GEO’s proposal that are unfeasible:
- establish a new child care center by August 2026;
- guarantee child care center seats for all graduate students’ children;
- provide child care at no cost for graduate students;
- establish a university-operated K-12 after-school care center; and
- allow Employees who have children enrolled in the Child Care Centers to to determine training for child care center staff and to determine which child care center staff work with the Employee’s children.
Article XVI: Changes Resulting in a Conference. U-M agreed to GEO’s proposal to allow 30-day notice to the union of changes to terms and conditions of employment.
Article IV: Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment. U-M agreed to GEO’s proposed language regarding union activities as a ground for discrimination.

The next negotiation session will be Friday, April 17, 2026.

April 3

University and GEO negotiators met today for their tenth negotiation session. The state-appointed mediator was not present due to scheduling. He is expected to attend next week’s session.

Incorporation of GSRAs into the GEO Collective Bargaining Agreement

The parties discussed the process for incorporating Graduate Student Research Assistants (GSRAs) into the current collective bargaining agreement. U-M and GEO presented ideas and proposals for how to proceed. Next, the parties will consider which contract articles need to be negotiated to include GSRAs.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented the following two new proposals and two counter proposals.

Article IX Job Postings
- The proposal aims to significantly overhaul the article, which will require in-depth analysis, especially relative to the impact on GSRA appointments, which are jobs that are not currently posted.
Article XV Special Conferences
- GEO seeks to add “new emerging governmental policies, social issues, environmental issues, and technological issues” as subjects that can require a special conference and to expand who may attend special conferences.
Article XVII Class Sizes (counterproposal)
- GEO proposes to create a class size policy for the College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA) including:
  - Imposing a maximum student to GSI ratio of 60:1,
  - Creating a “low-enrollment policy,” and
  - Prohibiting canceling of low-enrolled courses that don’t meet that threshold.
Article XVI Changes Resulting in a Conference (counterproposal)
- GEO aims to expand the notice and documentation requirements for applicable changes to terms and conditions of employment for employees in a unit or department.

The university posed preliminary questions to GEO about the proposals it presented today. GEO also answered outstanding questions the university asked last week.

The university did not present new proposals or counter proposals.

The next session is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 2026.

March 2026

March 27

GSRA Accretion Election

The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) conducted the election for Graduate Student Research Assistants (GRSAs) to join GEO, which concluded on March 26. As a result of the vote, GRSAs will be included in the GEO bargaining unit.

MERC sent 1,910 ballots to GSRAs. Seventeen percent of eligible voters cast ballots, with 299 votes to join the union, 25 votes against joining, and six spoiled ballots.

Negotiations Update

University and GEO negotiators met today for their ninth bargaining session. The state-appointed mediator was not present due to scheduling. However, U-M and GEO proceeded without the mediator because of the logistics agreement achieved last week.

Tentative Agreements

The parties reached tentative agreements on two proposals the university presented in November 2025: Article XXIII, Past Practices and MOU #7, E-Signatures. The proposals aim to improve the readability of the contract by removing outdated language and streamlining internal references. GEO and U-M agreed to retract the agreements upon identifying the need to determine what and how negotiated terms will apply to GSRAs.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented two counterproposals:

Article XII, Childcare, which seeks to:

Remove all restrictions on the Child Care Subsidy Award Program through Office of Financial Aid; including that childcare be provided by a licensed provider to allow for nannies and family members to receive compensation from the subsidy;
Provide subsidy to all bargaining unit members regardless of need;
Provide childcare at the University Centers at no cost to bargaining unit members;
Give a say to employees with children enrolled at the centers regarding which staff works with their child and the training received by the staff member;
Establish an additional university Child Care center by August 1, 2026;
Establish a no-cost after school program for children K-12; and
Reinstate the Child Care Initiative Steering Committee.

Article XIII, Leaves of Absence, which seeks significant changes, including:

Increasing the Medical Leave provided from six weeks to eight weeks;
Amending the Rackham Graduate School Academic Policy on Leaves of Absence for Personal Reasons;
Requiring the University to develop a grant application system, similar to the Rackham Travel Grant, for hiring a temporary worker to assist in field work during an Employee’s leave;
Providing employees who have more than one year of service and less than ten years of service with Extended Medical Leave;
Significantly amending the Maternity (Childbirth) and Parental Leave that GEO gained in the last round of negotiations and removing the reference to SPG 201.30-6;
Adding a provision similar to faculty modified duties upon return from parental leave;
Expanding leave for Immigration Proceedings both in time and scope of the leave;
Increasing bereavement leave to 14 days and adding “close friend”; and
Adopting a Leave of Absence for Personal Reasons provision and amending the Rackham policy to include no limit to how many leaves can be granted, retaining of tuition waiver and GradCare and continuing the leave for 4.5 months past the end of the semester.

The university did not present any new proposals. U-M posed questions to GEO about its counterproposals from last week, including its Immigration, Information, and Discrimination articles, with a focus on questions related to the union’s Immigration proposal.

The next session is scheduled for Friday, April 3, 2026.

March 20

GEO and U-M negotiators met in-person with the assistance of the state-appointed mediator on March 20, 2026 in Ann Arbor. This marks the eighth negotiation session. Six scheduled negotiations remain before the current collective bargaining agreement expires on May 1, 2026.

Ground Rules

U-M and GEO agreed to ground rules that will guide future negotiation sessions, including:

Setting a limit on the number of graduate students permitted to attend in-person bargaining sessions;
Designating three negotiation sessions of up to two hours each that will be open to the broader U-M community;
Keeping bargaining sessions closed to the media with no recordings allowed; and
Identifying bargaining team members, chief negotiator, and all speakers at negotiation sessions.

GEO Proposals

GEO presented its first proposal and two counter proposals to the university’s 17 proposals presented last November.

The union’s first proposal concerns immigration with sections that seek to:

Restrict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on campus;
Require the university to notify GEO if ICE is present on campus, prohibit partnership with federal immigration agencies and restrict ICE access to private spaces; and
Prohibit U‑M employees, contractors, and agents from voluntarily assisting or facilitating immigration enforcement activity on any U‑M property unless legally required.

The university will review the proposal to determine which, if any, portions are mandatory bargaining subjects and which are permissive bargaining subjects.

The union provided counter proposals regarding:

Article IV Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment:
- Changing what union activities are protected under the contract and adding limits on the sharing of union membership.
Article VII Information:
- Adding a requirement to provide reports to the union on statistical data on employment applications as well as enrollment and class sizes.

U-M Proposals

U-M did not present new proposals.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for March 27, 2026 in Palmer Commons.

March 13

Following the state’s mandated 28-day pause in negotiations, GEO and the university met with the state-appointed mediator on March 13, 2026 in Ann Arbor.

The parties made significant progress toward agreeing to ground rules that will move the negotiations process forward.

GEO presented revised terms for the negotiations process. After productive conversation, the parties decided to do additional work to clarify remaining ambiguities with the hope of coming to an agreement early next week so that productive negotiations on substantive terms and conditions of employment may follow.

The next negotiation session is scheduled for March 20, 2026.

February 2026

February 27

Provost Laurie McCauley sent an update message yesterday, Feb. 26, to all Ann Arbor faculty members regarding the status of negotiations between U-M and GEO. This update provides 1) essential context, 2) how bargaining logistics are central to the current status of negotiations, and 3) details about the state mediator’s 28-day pause. You can read the entirety of the message at the Provost's website.

February 12

The state-appointed mediator temporarily suspended negotiations in a letter sent to the university and GEO this morning. The mediator, who is appointed by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, suspended further bargaining/mediation sessions for 28 days and directed the parties to make use of this period to confer with the mediator regarding the best way to move forward.

February 6

The University of Michigan and the Graduate Employees’ Organization (GEO) met for their sixth bargaining session with the assistance of a mediator appointed by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC), part of the State of Michigan’s Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

GEO did not pass any proposals during the session. The university did not pass any new proposals. (The university passed 17 proposals during the Nov. 14, 2025 session. GEO has not responded to those proposals.)

During the last two negotiation sessions, GEO stated that it has a proposal on salary; the union has declined to pass the proposal to the university through the mediator. GEO has stated publicly that the proposal will include wage increases totaling 42% over three years, specifically: 15% in academic year 2026-2027, 15% in academic year 2027-2028, and 12% in academic year 2028-2029. GEO also stated that it seeks pay parity among the Flint, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor campuses. In an effort to advance productive engagement with GEO and to progress in negotiations, the university posed questions to GEO about the salary proposal they had shared publicly, outside the formal bargaining process. The university asked clarifying questions about the years for each increase and the union’s definition of parity.

GEO indicated that it had a presentation regarding its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigration concerns, but declined to share it with U-M through the mediator.

The university communicated to GEO that its team is ready and willing to consider their proposals through the mediator, along with any supplementary information, with the intention of responding as quickly as possible.

January 2026

January 30

The University of Michigan and the Graduate Employees’ Organization (GEO) met for their fifth bargaining session with the assistance of a mediator appointed by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC), part of the State of Michigan’s Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

MERC mediation is a well-established tool in public-sector labor negotiations; the MERC mediator is a neutral third party with the main goal of keeping negotiations moving forward.

Since bargaining began in November 2025, the university has presented 17 proposals addressing mandatory subjects of bargaining. GEO has not submitted its own proposals or counterproposals on these issues.

A primary reason negotiations have stalled is the emphasis GEO has placed on how bargaining sessions should be conducted, to the detriment of progress on mandatory subjects (i.e., wages, hours, and working conditions). An effective approach in bargaining, and one used by our other campus unions, is for each side to identify a bargaining team and a lead negotiator authorized to speak on behalf of the group and who conveys information back to the group.

Without defined representation, even simple procedural elements of negotiation are impeded, delaying forward movement on the core concerns of collective bargaining, which are agreements about wages, hours, and working conditions. Instead, GEO has prioritized bargaining logistics, such as "packing the room," with loosely defined limits on who may speak, at the expense of addressing proposals on the table that represent material steps toward a contract resolution.

In parallel to putting forward 17 proposals, the university has proposed multiple options to allow the broad union member access GEO desires while maintaining an orderly negotiating process, such as bargaining in rooms accommodating up to 50 people and live Zoom access for all bargaining unit members.

GEO has declined these offers and restated their commitment to in-person participation that is open to the public, includes up to 150 people, and allows anyone present to speak.

The university's focus remains on bargaining the contract itself. For that reason, university representatives have continued to attend every scheduled bargaining session and participate in shuttle bargaining through the mediator to advance discussions on substantive issues.

The university’s bargaining team will continue to attend bargaining sessions and looks forward to reviewing GEO’s proposals and counterproposals whenever they pass them.

January 23

The university and GEO met for the fourth negotiations session on Jan. 23, 2026, at Palmer Commons with the assistance of the state-appointed mediator.

The university previously informed GEO that U-M’s negotiators would meet with GEO in the bargaining room under the logistics the university proposed in October 2025. However, GEO declined to agree to those logistics, so the parties did not meet in the same room. Instead, the mediator facilitated negotiations while the parties remained in separate rooms.

GEO expressed interest in asking the university questions about proposals the university submitted in November 2025. Through the mediator, GEO posed several clarifying questions about two of U-M’s 17 proposals. The university provided responses to the questions on the following articles:

Article XIII Leaves of Absence, Section B. Employee Maternity (Childbirth) and Parental Leave. The university confirmed for GEO that its proposal does not remove any benefit for GSIs and GSSAs, but reduces redundancies and updates non-substantive language that was not updated in the last negotiations cycle.
Article XVI Changes Resulting in a Conference. The university confirmed that the removal of “class size” from the list reduces redundancies, since the process for changes to those policies is included in Article XVII Class Size.

GEO has not submitted any proposals in the four negotiations sessions to date. The university did not present any new proposals.

The next scheduled negotiations session is Jan. 30, 2026, at Palmer Commons.

January 16

On Jan. 15, 2026, GEO informed the university that the union will not meet for the scheduled Jan. 16 bargaining session. This is the second consecutive week that GEO has declined to negotiate as scheduled.

The next scheduled bargaining session is Jan. 23, 2026.

For more information, see previous negotiations updates or visit GEO Negotiations FAQs.

January 9

On Jan. 8, 2026, GEO informed the university that the union would forgo the scheduled Jan. 9 bargaining session. The next scheduled session is Jan. 16, 2026; the university awaits confirmation that GEO will attend.

For more information, see previous negotiations updates or visit GEO Negotiations FAQs.

December 2025

December 12

U-M and GEO met for their third negotiations session at Palmer Commons with the assistance of the state-appointment mediator.

Key developments include:

University Proposal: The union would not receive the university’s proposal regarding Article IX Postings, Distribution of Postings, Notification, and Hiring Procedures, which is the university’s eighteenth proposal.
Logistics Discussion: The university informed GEO that it will not continue discussing bargaining logistics to allow the parties to focus their efforts on substantive discussions about terms and conditions of employment, which are mandatory bargaining subjects.
- Logistics (also known as “ground rules”) is a permissive bargaining subject. Permissive bargaining subjects are ones that the parties may voluntarily choose to discuss, but are not legally required to. Neither party may insist on negotiating a permissive bargaining subject to impasse.
- Since the parties have been discussing logistics since the university initially contacted GEO about negotiations planning in July 2025, without coming to an agreement, the university believes continued discussions will be unproductive and will distract from negotiating terms and conditions of employment. With 17 university proposals on the table to date, U-M believes it is best for the parties to devote their time to good faith negotiations about key contract terms.
- Neither party may force the other to continue negotiations on a permissive bargaining subject, such as logistics. If one party attempts to force the other party to negotiate a permissive subject, then the other party may file an unfair labor practice charge alleging violation of the Public Employment Relations Act.
- For more information about permissive bargaining subjects, see the FAQ page.
Future Negotiations Sessions: The university communicated to GEO a detailed list of dates and locations for negotiations to occur in 2026. At this time, the union has declined to confirm if it will attend future sessions.
Mediation Status: Mediation is part of the collective bargaining process. It does not necessitate or require the parties to sit at the same table. Even if the parties are not in the same room, good-faith labor negotiations continue through the mediation process. Mediation enables the parties to have productive discussions with the help of a professional and neutral third-party, who communicates the parties’ respective interests and positions to help them achieve an agreement.
GEO did not respond to the 17 proposals previously submitted by the university.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for January 9, 2026 at Pierpont Commons.

December 5

The university and GEO did not meet for negotiations on Friday, Dec. 5, 2025 due to the mediator’s schedule. The next session is scheduled for Friday, Dec. 12, 2025.

On Friday, Nov. 14, 2025, U-M submitted seventeen proposals to GEO. Many of these proposals are changes designed to improve administrative efficiencies and to update, enhance clarity, and improve readability of current contract language. This is a non-exhaustive summary of the proposals.

Article IV Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment
- Updates “Office of Institutional Equity” to “Equity, Civil Rights & Title IX Office.”
Article VI Union Rights
- Removes unutilized language requiring union-designated bulletin boards, emails on orientations, and contract printing.
Article VII Information
- Adds requirement for union to request data and identify departmental stewards, in alignment with sister union contract.
Article VIII Job Security
- Restructured section on reduction or termination of employment to improve readability. Adds language to give autonomy to employees to decide who receives documents related to reduction or termination of employment.
- Moves Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) language to Article 22, Policies and Procedures for Employees with Disabilities.
- Adds language to provide a just cause legal standard for reduction or termination of employment, which an arbitrator would apply in arbitration. (Language mirrors GEO’s sister union contract.)
Article XII Childcare
- Improves language clarity; no substantive change.
Article XIII Leaves of Absence
- Updates use of term to “Maternity (Childbirth) and Parental Leave” to align with SPG 201.30-6 and eliminates unnecessary language on benefits during leave as this leave includes benefits.
- Adds Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) language from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to this article and adds Employee Sick Time Act (ESTA) provisions.
Article XVI Changes Resulting in Special Conference
- Realigns scope of Article to policy changes that may result in Special Conferences and removes “class size policy” as a reason for special conference to mitigate conflict with Article XVII Class Size.
Article XVII Class size
- Specifies using the academic year for meetings about class size changes to align with policy changes that occur annually. Updates required notification dates to allow more flexibility for units when making updates to class size policies.
Article XIX Employee Training
- Removes limits on unit autonomy to determine appropriate length of employee training.
Article XXI Employee Rights
- Clarifies language to denote lecturers are faculty members.
- Changes work hours for purposes of scheduling meetings from “9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.” to “8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.” to align with the university’s normal business hours.
- Moves sections for lounges and coffee-making facilities from Article 23 Past Practices and current language from MOU V regarding “Lactation Accommodations” to this article.
Article XXII Policies and Procedures for Employees with Disabilities
- Updates this Article to align with two other academic union contracts and reflects updates to university processes for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Corrects statutory references and adds reference to SPG 201.35, Non-Discrimination.
- Removes obsolete implementation language and edits subsections for readability; changes language to reflect how the designated central office addresses Employees’ requests for reasonable accommodation.
Article XXIII Past Practices
- Deletes this article because all sections are moving to Article XXI Employee Rights.

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)

MOU 1 - Work/Life Resource Center
- Removes MOU because “Work Life Resources Center” is now "Child and Family Care” and services are available to a broad scope of employees, including those covered under this agreement.
MOU 3 - FMLA Compliance
- Moves to Leaves of Absence Article.
MOU 5 - Lactation Accommodations
- Moves to Employee Rights Article.
MOU 6 - Continuation of Dues Authorization
- Removes outdated provision from 2017 about dues authorization cards that is no longer necessary. Does not change any process or procedure around dues authorization cards.
MOU 7 - E-Signature
- Removes outdated provision on electronic signatures for dues authorization cards. Does not change the allowability of electronic signatures for this purpose.

November 2025

November 21

U-M and GEO negotiating teams held their second negotiations session today, with the continuing assistance of a neutral mediator from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). Either party may request a third-party mediator from MERC. Mediation is a confidential process designed to enable the parties to make continued progress to achieve an agreement.

Key developments include:

There were no questions or counterproposals from GEO in response to the 17 proposals U-M presented on November 14.
GEO did not present any of their own proposals.
Discussions about logistics continued with the university again requesting answers to its outstanding questions regarding GEO’s counter proposal.

GEO unilaterally adjourned the session before agreeing on when the next session will occur, and informed the mediator that they would instead communicate via email.

November 14

In accordance with their contractual obligation to begin negotiations on or before November 14, 2025, U-M’s and GEO’s negotiations teams held their first bargaining session today with the assistance of a mediator from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). The session began with introductions and the mediator’s explanation of the mediation process.

Key developments include:

Both parties expressed an interest in continuing discussions on logistics with the goal of reaching an agreement that supports the negotiation process and procedures. The university initiated logistics discussions with the union in July with the aim of avoiding a delay in negotiations. As part of today’s discussions, the university again requested answers to the questions that it had previously asked the union to help clarify its logistics proposal. For more information on “logistics,” visit the FAQ page.
GEO recorded video and audio of the initial joint session via Zoom without the university’s or mediator’s knowledge or consent, which runs contrary to negotiations norms. The university then requested that the mediator conduct “shuttle mediation,” in which the mediator moves between the parties' individual caucus rooms, presenting proposals for the parties, clarifying positions, and helping both parties identify areas of alignment and potential movement.
To avoid a delayed start to negotiations due to continuing discussion about logistics, the university proceeded to present 17 proposals on the terms and conditions of employment. U-M presented the following proposals, primarily aimed at updating and streamlining current contract language:
- Article IV Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Employment
- Article VI Union Rights
- Article VII Information
- Article VIII Job Security
- Article XII Childcare
- Article XIII Leaves
- Article XVI Changes Resulting in Special Conference
- Article XVII Class Size
- Article XIX Employee Training
- Article XXI Employee Rights
- Article XXII Policies and Procedures for Employees with Disabilities
- Article XXIII Past Practice
- MOU 1 Work Life Resource Center
- MOU 3 FMLA Compliance
- MOU 5 Lactation Accommodations
- MOU 6 Continuation of Dues Authorization
- MOU 7 E-Signature

GEO did not present any proposals today.

The next negotiations session is scheduled for November 21, 2025.

November 5

Formal negotiations between the university and the Graduate Employees’ Organization (GEO) are scheduled to begin next week on November 14, 2025 in accordance with the current contract. While negotiations have not yet started, the university is providing this update to offer background in advance of the process as well as provide information on the informal process and discussions up to this point. This update serves to outline the steps taken in preparation for negotiations, including early discussions on logistics and the university's ongoing efforts to ensure that negotiations begin on schedule and proceed in a timely, constructive manner as well as the university’s request to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to provide a mediator to help the parties reach agreement on a successor contract.

Background Information

Logistics

Before negotiations begin, both parties agree to logistics, i.e., number of people present during bargaining, rooms, etc.
This phase of bargaining is centered on practical considerations, designed to make sure the bargaining process runs smoothly. Resolution is typically achieved quickly, as both parties hold common assumptions about ground rules drawn from labor negotiations across higher education.
The university initiated logistics communications in July to ensure a timely start to negotiations.

GEO's Position on Logistics

GEO has proposed negotiations sessions with up to 150 people in-person and open to anyone they define having an interest in negotiations, including people who are not graduate student employees, those who do not work at the university, or those with no affiliation with the university.
GEO has also advocated for allowing anyone to speak at negotiations, up to fifteen (15) per side per session, not just the bargaining team and their consultants.

The University's Position on Logistics

The university has proposed capping attendance for bargaining sessions at 50 people, which is a much larger audience than is typical across labor negotiations.
The university maintains timely, substantive, and good-faith negotiations are conducted in-line with higher education and other industry labor bargaining norms, i.e., both negotiation teams and advisors meet in conference rooms and caucus with others as necessary. This approach has served our many unions and the university.
The university is sensitive to GEO’s expressed preferences and has proposed three open bargaining sessions during this round of negotiations.

Despite the university’s early efforts, the parties have yet to reach consensus on several preliminary issues necessary to ensure that negotiations can begin productively on November 14, 2025. Given the university’s clear intent to conclude negotiations and to ratify a successor contract before the current contract expires on May 1, 2026, the university has requested the assistance of a mediator appointed by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to facilitate the negotiations on terms and conditions of employment. Mediation through MERC is a usual and regular option that helps parties reach an agreement.

The university’s bargaining team is fully committed to bargaining in good faith toward an agreement that serves the interests of graduate student instructors and graduate student staff assistants and the university. The university is ready and intends to begin substantive negotiations on time.

Academic Human Resources