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.
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.