Why the SAV? A note to our colleagues
Dear Colleagues,
On Friday, February 14th, our WOAW-UAW union called for a Strike Authorization Vote (SAV). If approved, this vote would give our elected Bargaining Committee the power to call a strike if circumstances warrant. Two-thirds of those voting must vote “yes” for the SAV to pass. In the first 12 hours of our Strike Authorization Vote, more than 50% of all bargaining unit employees cast their ballots, and we expect more to come before the vote closes on Thursday.
Shortly after our vote opened, Provost Coile sent out a mass communication. While her message reflects an unfortunate escalation of the College’s divisive anti-union rhetoric, it does give us an opportunity to counter some persistent misinformation.
The College states that the SAV is “premature.” We called the SAV because after 19 bargaining sessions and over 65 hours of face-to-face negotiations, the College has resisted making progress on core priorities such as workload, job security, titles, and prohibitions against discrimination and harassment. As we explain below, the College’s workload and compensation proposals were non-starters. Over the past two months we have done extensive outreach to our members and we have heard widespread support for taking concrete steps to make bargaining more productive.
Provost Coile defends the College’s initial compensation proposal by highlighting the fact that “when enacted it would bring the average salary for all bargaining unit employees (BUEs) to $92,259.” This average masks a more complex story. If you consider the distribution of current salaries, a few high earners skew the average. As illustrated in the graph below, 25% of our unit makes less than $69,000 and 75% makes less than $98,000. Under the College’s proposal, for 82% of BUEs, the minimum base pay is below their current salary; these faculty would not see a change to their salary outside the standard annual increase. For the other 18%, the College’s proposed base pay is—on average—only 3% above their current salary.
While the College’s “average” distorts the true picture of our current salaries, it also hides the stagnation of our salaries over time. As many of you know, in 2008 the College froze NTT starting salaries at $55,000 for twelve years. In the graph below, the green line shows how our salaries would have increased if the starting salary had increased by 2.5% each year to keep up with the average rate of inflation. Notably, K-12 teachers in the region (who are unionized) have somewhat higher starting salaries and a much higher rate of growth over time. Moreover, the wage gap of $31,000 persists between BUEs who were hired before and after 2008. We unionized to address this persistent problem of salary stagnation, but the College’s proposal does nothing to address stagnation since so few BUEs would see their base salary increased based on their proposed minimum salary. Earning a living wage commensurate with our education and experience, and keeping up with the Greater Boston Area’s cost of living, remains a top priority for WOAW-UAW.
Sources: BUE salary data requested by WOAW-UAW and furnished by Wellesley College on 01/30/2025; Wellesley College’s compensation counterproposal presented during a 01/21/2025 bargaining session; various teachers’ union collective bargaining agreements including Boston Teachers Union, Wellesley Educators Association, and others.
In addition to compensation, workload is a top priority for our members. An impetus for calling the SAV was the College’s repeated proposals to increase the teaching load of Lecturers from four to five courses per year (and the equivalent for ISLs). Provost Coile justified this position by arguing that their proposal “effectively reduces the BUEs advising and service load, clarifies that research and publications are not expectations of the job, and concentrates on the BUEs fundamental role as instructors.” In short, the College is attempting to “adjunctify” non-tenure track faculty at Wellesley by insisting on increasing our teaching load while stripping aspects of our jobs that enrich student experience and are essential to the functioning of the College: thesis and independent study advising, robust professional development, research, and College-level service.
Another sticking point that Provost Coile addressed in her email regards our proposal on the Prohibition Against Discrimination and Harassment. On our website, we state that the College refuses to agree to “standard union protections” and Provost Coile claims that “this is false.” We disagree. It is a standard union protection to be able to enforce the contract by filing a grievance. The College proposes to carve out claims of discrimination and harassment from our grievance procedure. In other words, if we find mold in our classroom and the College doesn’t fix it, we can file a grievance. But if we are sexually harassed and the College refuses to provide supportive measures, we cannot file a grievance. Why won’t Wellesley hold itself accountable to ensuring a safe and inclusive workplace? As professors at an historically women’s college, we are committed to setting a gold standard for protecting women and other marginalized groups.
We encourage you to decide for yourself by reading our proposal and the College’s counterproposals [here].
We are invested in what sets Wellesley apart, and we are central to delivering the top-notch educational experience the College is known for. Further adjunctifying us, however, runs counter to the College’s mission. We have always had the goal of a working environment where non-tenure track faculty can thrive at Wellesley. When we thrive, our students thrive along with us. When we feel supported in our roles, we can better support them as they launch into the world to make a difference.
We look forward to making progress at the bargaining table, and you can track our proposals and updates on our website https://www.wellesleyorganizedacademicworkers.org/.
On behalf of the WOAW-UAW Bargaining and Organizing Committees,
Erin Royston Battat