The Office of the Provost’s original email on March 27 made several references to a “required number of minutes,” but it did not specify what this requirement is. The College continued to be inconsistent on this point, taking several days to construct a direct answer.

On March 31, Coile and President Paula Johnson presented to the College Government Senate on the topic. The slide on credit hours was prefaced with the helpful “warning: confusing!” and cited the notso-confusing definition “A semester hour must include at least 37.5 clock hours of instruction” (Federal Register, Vol 75 No. 209, page 66950). 

Throughout this presentation, Coile reiterated that calculating the number of minutes is confusing. As a Wellesley student who has fulfilled my Quantitative Reasoning, Data Literacy and Mathematical Modeling distribution requirements, I — and many others — do not find multiplication confusing.

This plan was announced on the ninth week of classes. Because the strike began on a Thursday, NTT courses were likely able to meet on Monday and Tuesday, but not Thursday and Friday. Thus, we will assume 8.5 weeks of class had elapsed by the start of the strike. 150 minutes per week times 8.5 weeks is 1,275 minutes. If 1,950 minutes are worth 1.0 credit, we must divide 1,275 by 1,950 to get 0.65 credits. Thus, students whose classes are being cut short by the strike are receiving less credit than they actually completed. The College’s argument against awarding the amount of credit is because the College gives credit in units of 0.25. However, if the Registrar is able to frequently award study abroad and transfer credits in units of 0.8, there clearly is a way for Wellesley to adjust the amount of credits to accurately reflect student learning.

Another point of contention is that the new courses that students will complete in presumably the last four weeks of the semester are also equal to 0.5 credits. If students register for new classes on March 29, between March 31 and the last day of classes, they will have nine classes to attend. Nine class days times 75 minutes is 675 minutes. 675 minutes of class attended divided by the 1,950 minutes required for 1.0 credit is equal to 0.346 credits. Clearly, the classes students are forced to add at the last minute are not equivalent to their classes that have been cut short. 

If the math seems nonsensical, that is the point. Of course, I’m sure the process of ensuring Wellesley’s credit hours align with accreditation standards was a thorough and intentional process that might not map out with mathematical precision. However, make no mistake: the Provost’s decision was not made to preserve the integrity of Wellesley academics — it was a last-ditch union-busting effort, and now administrators would rather save face than meet their responsibilities towards students. The Provost’s decision is extremely disrespectful, implying that our courses are interchangeable with each other. It suggests that Wellesley students take courses simply to get the credits for a degree, rather than to design an enriching academic experience. If there was a genuine concern to maintain Wellesley’s academic standards, the administration would not disregard how Wellesley students chose a liberal arts education to be intentional with their intellectual pursuits, minimize the learning students have put in so far by reducing their credit, and force students to take on new classes purely for gaining credit hours. If this was a genuine effort to support students, the administration would not disrespect tenure-track faculty by pressuring them to take on new students in the last few weeks of the semester and imply that any student could easily master their curriculum in only nine classes. If this was genuine, the administration would have bargained with the Union in good faith, avoiding the strike entirely.

The College justified announcing the credit plan on the first day of the strike by arguing that they needed to take action early in the event that the strike lasted all semester. Nearly twenty days into the strike, we see the College’s self-fulfilling prophecy materialize. Now with this plan to fall back on, the College presents the image that they do not need to bargain urgently to end the strike. 

However, like with the original credit plan, this too has holes in it. It is expensive for the College to pay for picket line security each day. Thesising students have had to hurriedly reorganize their thesis panels. Delaying the strike puts summer courses and the Fall 2025 semester in limbo, as students are unsure as to which courses will be offered. Media attention will be on the College on Marathon Monday, families will come to campus on Commencement, and alums will come to campus for Reunion. Waiting out the strike is not sustainable. The College must swallow their pride and return to the bargaining table. 

No amount of condescending Senate meetings, dismissive Zoom webinars or backtracking email blasts will salvage the situation. Administration has irrevocably destroyed whatever trust the Wellesley community have held for the administration. There is only one clear solution. First, the administration must substantively demonstrate their commitment to Wellesley academics by bargaining in good faith with WOAW to bring the strike to an end. This includes agreeing to WOAW’s offers for additional bargaining sessions, engaging with WOAW’s big ticket items and not pressuring the Union to engage in private mediation. Second, the administration must issue an apology to students (particularly international students, students on financial aid, and graduating seniors) and faculty (both tenure-track and NTT) for the chaos and damage the 0.5 credit plan has created. 

Finally, we as students cannot lose sight of the issue at hand. Faculty teaching conditions are our learning conditions. We cannot sit on our hands and wait for the grown-ups to figure things out. Our education is being materially impacted, and we must take action. We are the students of this college. Our money pays senior leadership’s paychecks, and our money should be used to pay our educators. We have a voice in calling for the College to return to the bargaining table. We must use that voice to uphold the Wellesley education, for ourselves currently on campus, for the alums that came before us and for the students that will follow up. 

Our community has been demonstrably shaken up by the College’s actions. As we reach the third week into the strike, we can tell that this is not a situation that will casually blow over. As a community, we have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to preserve this institutional memory — as painful as it may be — and work to create a better future, one that values the labor of those who make Wellesley what it is.

The College told the IMSEUA bargaining unit on March 21 that in the event of a strike, Wellesley College would remain operational, and IMSEUA employees would be expected to come to work.

The IMSEUA bargaining unit covers a wide variety of staff at Wellesley College, including food service, custodial staff, and groundskeepers. Workers at the power plant, distribution center, motor pool, golf course and botanic gardens are also unionized as part of the IMSEUA.

After receiving this notice, the IMSEUA filed a group grievance against Wellesley College on March 24, in an attempt to rescind the College’s interpretation of the no-strike clause in their contract.

The disagreement centers around Article 16 of the IMSEUA’s contract with Wellesley College, which states, “there shall be no strikes, lockouts, picketing, stoppage of work, slowdowns, boycotts or any other direct or indirect interference with operations of the College concerning any matter in dispute between the College and the Union or any of the employees.”

Wellesley College interprets this clause to mean that the IMSEUA is not allowed to participate in any work stoppages.

On the other hand, Tricia Diggins, a custodian and business agent for the IMSEUA, argues that a sympathy strike is allowed under their interpretation of the clause. For the purposes of the contract, an employee is a member of the IMSEUA bargaining unit. Thus, the “matter in dispute” is between the College and WOAW, not their union or employees, allowing IMSEUA members to strike.

According to their grievance procedures, the College’s director of labor and employee relations, Donna Scally, has 30 days to respond to an interdepartmental group grievance. If the IMSEUA disagrees, they can then ask for expedited arbitration, but the arbitration process can take months.

“Grievances and arbitration take forever,” said Diggins. “So God forbid the strike is still going on when we finally settle this.”

In the meantime, IMSEUA employees are allowed to show support for WOAW in other ways, such as wearing WOAW buttons, bringing picketers food or donating to the strike hardship fund.

Outside of their scheduled shifts, IMSEUA employees are also permitted to stand and hold signs near the picket line, but cannot officially picket.

The College is wary of overstepping guidelines governing what employers can say to their employees about organized labor, and Diggins emphasized that Scally was careful to maintain those boundaries. “Donna [Scally] told us she spoke to managers and told them not to express opinions to us,” she said. 

Diggins explains that her father was a member of the large labor union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), until the 1980s, when his company closed and he got a job as a custodian at Wellesley College. 

“This is why my life’s been pretty good,” Diggins recalls, “because he had a union job.”

It has been difficult for Diggins and other employees who support WOAW to cross the picket line each day.

“It hurts us to do that,” said Gloria Figueroa, a barista at the Emporium and trustee on the IMSEUA executive board.

Still, sympathy strikes from other unionized companies have made it harder for certain IMSEUA employees to do their jobs.

The dining halls get the majority of their deliveries from Sysco, a multinational food distributor. At the beginning of the strike, there were concerns that food deliveries to the dining halls would be interrupted because more than 10,000 Sysco employees are part of the Teamsters union, including those at Sysco Boston. 

The College has since developed a workaround with Sysco, where unionized truck drivers park outside the picket line and dining hall managers transport deliveries in smaller vans. Service at the dining halls has remained largely unaffected.

In a statement to the News, the College did not say whether they have made similar arrangements with other vendors, or whether these vendors are receiving additional compensation for accommodating the College.

Unlike the dining halls, many of the supplies for the Emporium come directly from Starbucks and are delivered by UPS, whose drivers are also unionized.

Figueroa says that the Emporium has only received one shipment of Starbucks supplies since the strike began, and they are already running out of ingredients needed to complete orders.

“That’s all I have left, one case of matcha,” said Figueroa. The Emporium was out of large cups for two weeks before a manager was able to complete their shipment, and is currently low on strawberry and dragon fruit inclusions.

Figueroa’s biggest concern is for the Wellesley community, especially in light of the Trump administration’s decision to revoke visas for students across the country and the potential impact of the strike on international students’ full-time status.

“I’m always reading what is happening with the student visas,” said Figueroa. “You guys know that we are here to support you on anything, and if there’s anything we can do, we will do it for the students.”

Another unexpected impact of the strike on IMSEUA employees? Elevators.

According to Diggins, at the IMSEUA executive board meeting on April 9, the group leader for preventive maintenance said that Stanley Elevator Company, responsible for elevator maintenance and repair, is unionized and would not be coming on campus during the strike.

Stanley Elevator Company did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the College declined to comment on the College’s relationship with individual vendors.

Instead, Stacey Schmeidel, director of media relations, related a statement from Piper Orton, vice president for finance and administration and treasurer: “We will find solutions to problems to ensure that Wellesley can maintain critical functions, including feeding students and ensuring that buildings are in good working order.”

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar, Galeta Sandercock, and Valida Pau.

Mediation

According to Provost and Dean of the College Courtney Coile’s most recent email to the Wellesley Community on Monday, Apr. 7, the College issued a “new and urgent call” to the union for mediation. They claimed that the College first proposed mediation on March 26, which the Union then refused. The College further stated that a mediator could progress negotiations by “engaging in ongoing ‘shuttle diplomacy’” between WOAW and the College.

The Union did not agree to mediation. In WOAW’s email update sent on Apr. 7, they argued that a third party would not be able to answer the College’s positions on the teaching structure at Wellesley or non-tenure track base salaries. 

However, the College stated that mediation is appropriate after 27 bargaining sessions and a nine-day strike. 

 Five-course load proposal

The College proposed a five-course annual workload for non-tenure track faculty, the current workload of Wellesley’s visiting lecturers. The College justified this proposal by emphasizing the differences between non-tenure track and tenure-track faculty, including extensive research and service requirements. The College said that this workload also aligns with peer institution standards. 

Four-course lecturers currently have the option to continue teaching four courses with a total 15 percent salary growth over four years. 

The Union claimed the College failed to answer the Union’s direct question: “What problem are you trying to solve by increasing the teaching load?” The Union argues that they oppose any workload increase, especially one made without a clear rationale.

The Union views this proposed workload increase as devaluing teaching and student mentorship, given the centrality of non-tenure track faculty in student life. 

Compensation

The Union has proposed a $2.9 million increase in compensation, which they state represents approximately 1.1% of the College’s total budget. In contrast, the College has offered a $663k increase — equating to roughly 0.25% of the total budget.

In their Apr. 7 email update, the College emphasized that their proposal included a 31% salary increase spread over four years, with an average raise of 8.5% in the first year alone. The administration argues that this offer reflects market standards and represents a significant investment in faculty and staff.

However, the Union argues that the College’s offer remains inadequate and does not meet the financial needs or recognition deserved by its members.

The College, in turn, has expressed concern over the Union’s rejection of their offer without presenting counter-proposals on what it calls “core issues.”

Educational disruption and accreditation

The Union has sharply criticized the College’s fallback grading plan of having students enroll in other classes to earn 0.5 units of academic credit for the rest of the year, calling it “disastrous” for students. They warn that implementing such a plan could result in long-term academic harm, especially for graduating seniors and disciplines that require cumulative instruction. 

The Union wrote in their Apr. 7 email update, “The College’s reticence to settle a fair contract directly undermines our students. Seniors’ job prospects will be marred by these artificially low grades. Continuing students will have only ⅔ of the education they need to progress in their majors. How could a student succeed in Chem 205 if they’ve only finished ⅔ of Chem 105?” 

The College’s most recent communication did not address concerns about the accreditation policies raised by the Union.

Union’s calls for support

The College claims that, despite presenting a consolidated 84-page contract with 26 articles, the Union refused to negotiate on workload and compensation, instead reiterating its opposition to proposed changes.

The Union, however, argues that the administration is exploiting traditionally women’s work while claiming to empower women. 

Additionally, the Union asserts that the college’s proposals would fundamentally alter Wellesley’s identity and damage the long-standing faculty-student relationship that defines the College. They point to previous proposals, such as the introduction of the “Master Lecturer” title and the College’s refusal to include protections against discrimination based on marital status and reproductive health as further examples of the administration’s disregard for the values Wellesley claims to uphold. 

In their final call to action, the Union urged students, alumni and parents to stand in solidarity. “We ask alumni to support our cause by not crossing the picket line, and we encourage parents to contact the administration to voice their concern. This fight is about preserving the heart of Wellesley for future generations,” the Union wrote.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Galeta Sandercock and Valida Pau.

The proposals in the April 3rd bargaining session covered the issues of compensation and workload, a few of the union’s major sticking points. The union expressed concerns over the fairness of the proposal and its potential impact on faculty workload, student mentorship, and equity.

The College’s Proposal 

The College proposed a “grandmother clause” that would allow current lecturers and instructors of science laboratories (ISLs) to choose between a four or five course load while future hires would be required to teach five courses for the same $72,000 salary. Faculty members would need to decide by June 15, 2025, or two weeks after ratification of the contract, whichever is later, whether they wish to be “grandmothered” into this current workload model.

WOAW’s Response

The union rejected this proposal, arguing that such a model would create divisions between current and future hires.

 “Any model that pits new hires against existing hires is not acceptable to our unit,” the union wrote in their recent email update to students in support on April 3.

The union also expressed dissatisfaction with the College’s failure to address the significant contributions made by non-tenure track (NTT) faculty, who play key roles in advising students, leading independent studies, and managing departments.

 “We advise 32% of the student body. We provide 140+ independent study and senior thesis research opportunities every year. Many of our members run departments and programs in addition to teaching full time,” stated the WOAW-UAW Bargaining Committee.

WOAW argued that maintaining a four-course load is essential to ensure the quality of education and effective mentorship, both of which would be compromised by the shift to a five-course load. The union further contended that the College’s proposal contradicted its stated commitment to equity, particularly given the historical marginalization of teaching as “women’s work”.

WOAW’s Counterproposal

In response to the College’s proposal, WOAW submitted a counterproposal addressing all 21 unresolved issues. Notably, the union reduced the compensation request by $1.7 million, lowering the starting salary proposal from $88,000 to $85,000. The new proposal from the union would increase Wellesley’s $341 million annual expenditure by $2 million, a 0.6% increase.

The College’s Response

In response, the College introduced 16 new proposals, including a $5,000 dependent care benefit for families with children under five (pre-tax) and expanded leave benefits. The College also reported that 22 articles had been tentatively agreed upon, with a particular focus on faculty housing, health benefits, and retirement plans.

According to the College’s recent email update on April 3, “the union declined to discuss any of the articles the College put on the table this week, then said they would engage on individual issues only if the College presented all the articles in one comprehensive package.” The College expressed confusion and dissatisfaction, claiming this approach “unproductive” in the midst of the ongoing strike.

Next Steps

As the negotiations continue, the union has emphasized the importance of solidarity and values-based negotiations in resolving the dispute.

The College is seeking to end the strike and return to negotiations, proposing the mediation of an uninvolved third-party to address the remaining issues, as they claim a “diminishing path toward progress”.

After leaving the bargaining session early, the College “offered to add a negotiation session on Monday (Apr. 7)” which the union accepted, writing, “We hope they come prepared”.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar and Valida Pau.

UPS, which unionized under the Teamsters Union, has the contractual right to refuse to cross a picket line, according to the UPS National Master Agreement Article 9. 

Students received notices from the UPS shipping email last week saying that “unfortunately, a labor strike (unrelated to UPS) has prevented delivery of your package. Your delivery has been rescheduled for the next business day.” 

While UPS declines to cross the picket line, College staff are transporting packages from a UPS distribution center to campus, according to the College. With this new transporting system, it is uncertain whether packages will continue to be delayed and whether UPS will halt services to the College for the entire duration of the strike. 

The News could not reach the mailroom for a comment.

Deliveries to the College

On March 29, WOAW posted an X statement that “the College moved their deliveries to avoid our picket line and have worked with management companies driven by Teamsters to ensure managers drive their trucks and cross our picket lines.” They criticized the College for “rather coordinat[ing] with companies like Sysco than bargain[ing] with us.”

In a statement, WOAW member and Lecturer in Political Science, Paul Martorelli recalled how delivery trucks were able to cross the picket line. While outside his apartment by the College early in the morning last Saturday, he witnessed a delivery driver, belonging to the Teamsters union leave his truck and switch vehicles with a driver in a van. When Martorelli questioned the van driver, he said the delivery driver could not make the delivery because of “union stuff.”

Many truck drivers are part of unions that have a clause in their contract preventing members from crossing picket lines. However, managers do not have this limitation.

“When they’re aware of an active picket line, managers will often demand to drive the union member’s truck; so, the truck can cross the picket line,” Martorelli wrote.

According to Martorelli, he deduced that the College notified its vendors that a strike was taking place and that they coordinated with management to cross the picket line.

“Once again, the College showed that it’s less concerned about ending the strike with a fair contact than it is with breaking the strike through any means possible,” Martorelli wrote.

In a statement from Piper Orton, vice president for finance and administration and treasurer, she wrote how while they respect the union’s right to picket, they “have a responsibility to ensure that the picketing does not hinder our ability to provide food and essential other products and services to our students.”

“Some delivery companies may choose not to cross the union’s picket line, which is their right. The College will continue to take steps to ensure that Wellesley can maintain critical functions, like feeding our students and maintaining faculty and student research,” Orton wrote. 

Contact the editors responsible for this article: Sazma Sarwar and Valida Pau.

WOAW and the College reached tentative agreements for Union Rights and Access and Recognition for union members. However, the session did not address major proposals, such as compensation, workload and appointments and reappointment. The Union did not consider there to be enough progress made to end the strike.

Movements made

The College came with 16 proposals and a package of various benefits, including child care and paid medical leave.

The College offered a $5,000 child care benefit for BUEs with dependents six years and younger.

WOAW members said this proposal came unexpectedly and were hopeful the College could extend this policy to tenured faculty and staff.
The College also offered two semesters of paid medical leave that BUEs may take over the course of their careers. 

While the Union recognized the progress, they hoped to see a longer, more generous timeline for illness.

In another movement, the College guarantees that any case of alleged discrimination, harassment, or bullying can proceed to grievance and arbitration, reversing a firm stance they took in the past that would only allow the Union to proceed to grievance after arbitration and the College’s final actions.

  They did not provide definitive answers on the Union’s proposal to include a statement of non-discrimination on the basis of immigration status, in the case of a federal law change in the future.

The Immigration and Nationality Act already prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their citizenship status, immigration status, or national origin in hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral for a fee. 

Disagreement remains

The College wrote in a campus-wide email that it presented the Union with “significant moves.”

Anne Brubaker, Senior Lecturer in the Writing Program, acknowledged the College’s efforts in benefits but said they failed to present a comprehensive package that included all their articles and top-priority issues. 

Despite going on strike, the Union members are frustrated by the lack of urgency and slow progress of bargaining from the College side. 

The Union offered to extend the Tuesday bargaining session and meet on Wednesday, but the College insisted on meeting on Thursday on their previously agreed-upon schedule.    

“It just seems they’re almost acting unbothered…There’s no sense of urgency from the College’s bargaining team,” said Jacquelin Woodford, Lecturer in Chemistry.

The College strongly disagrees with that assertion, said the College in a statement to the News. They continued to propose third-party mediation, through a neutral private mediator, as federal mediators are no longer a viable option.

“The union continues to strike and shows no urgency around the College’s request to pursue private mediation – a tried and true method of resolving labor disputes,” said the College.

Brubaker rejected the College’s characterization of the strike as premature.

“We feel like in some ways, yes, we were striking because of the sticking points, but we were also striking to get them back to the bargaining table,” said Brubaker.

Brubaker also rejected the idea that bargaining has reached a point where mediation is necessary.

“And I know that they have suggested that we were at an impasse, and we needed mediation. But an impasse isn’t the same as not showing up and countering our proposals in a meaningful way,” said Brubaker.

“We call on the union to end the strike, focus on the critical work at the negotiating table, and allow students to return to their usual classes,” Coile and Slaboden wrote in the email.

In an email statement to the News, Brubaker wrote, “The College announcement from Provost Coile mentions ‘retirement benefits’ but this was not in the proposal package.”

In the meantime, WOAW’s bargaining update stated that on the evening of Apr. 1, the bargaining team sent another comprehensive package to the College ahead of bargaining on Apr. 3. This is the second comprehensive package, which includes information about all articles, that the Union has sent to the College.

The College and WOAW-UAW will return to bargaining Thursday, Apr. 3.

“No matter what sector we bargain in, it’s the same issue – the bosses don’t want to share,” Fein told the crowd gathered at the Central St. entrance.

In a statement to the News, he reiterated the link between unions across industries. “The fight is the same,” said Fein. “It may be a different business, but it’s about having dignity on the job.”

Fein’s message of support from unions in other sectors was underscored by the crowd in attendance at the rally. 

Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants, spoke at the picket line, and members of the UAW and Boston Teachers’ Union were in attendance. 

UPS, which is unionized, has also paused deliveries to the Mail Center for the duration of the strike.

State Senator Lydia Edwards made her second appearance on the picket line. She previously addressed WOAW on March 28, saying, “This is part of my continued work for collective movement to continue to bend the arc towards justice.”

Many of the speakers linked WOAW’s negotiations with Wellesley College administration to the broader political environment.

“We’re at a critical juncture in America right now,” said Fein. “The richest man in the world is calling the shots. Every protection for workers is under attack, our free speech is under attack, our right to organize is under attack – everything we do is under attack right now.”

Speakers also commented on how NTT faculty, who are more likely to be women than their tenured counterparts, to the historical undercompensation of positions considered “women’s work.”

Katie Hall, a distinguished senior lecturer in the physics department, remarked, “This is a women’s college that is paying a position that is traditionally considered women’s work sixty-seven cents on the tenure-track dollar.”

In addition to those who spoke on the picket line, other politicians have shown their support for WOAW online.

Elizabeth Warren, the senior US senator from Massachusetts, endorsed the WOAW in a post posted to X on March 28.

“Our educators work hard to support their students and their communities, and they deserve a contract that recognizes that hard work,” wrote Senator Warren, adding, “When workers fight, workers win.”

Senator Warren ran on a progressive economic platform, including a proposal to allocate a portion of board seats for workers at large companies. 

Jocelyn Benson ‘99, Michigan’s secretary of state and a Wellesley alumna who delivered the 2023 commencement address, also voiced her support in a video posted to the United Auto Workers (UAW) Youtube channel on March 24, stating, “I know Wellesley is a place that shaped who I am today, and I know it will do better.”

Secretary Benson’s endorsement comes as she is campaigning for governor of Michigan, the state where the UAW was founded in 1935.

On March 11 following the WOAW campus rally, Senator Ed Markey, the junior senator from Massachusetts, posted on X, “I am in solidarity with @UAWRegion9A workers at Wellesley College as they negotiate for a fair first contract.”

Senator Markey reiterated his support for WOAW on March 28 after the strike began, stating on X, “I am in solidarity with @WOAWUAW workers on the picket line at Wellesley today.”

The Wellesley News previously reported that WOAW has tentative plans to invite Senator Warren, Senator Markey, and Secretary Benson to speak at the picket line. 

When asked whether the union has plans to invite Senators Warren and Markey, Erin Battat, a senior lecturer in the Writing Program, told the News, “Anyone and everyone is welcome to join us at the picket line.”

The offices of Senator Warren and Senator Markey have not confirmed their appearances at the picket lines.

The Union believes public endorsements are effective strategies to put pressure on the College while helping motivate non-tenure track faculty as the strike continues.

“Public support from any member of the community who supports labor, whether that be students or national politicians or anyone in between, really buoys our morale because it reminds us that we’re not doing this for ourselves, we’re doing this for our students,” said Paul Martorelli, a lecturer in the Political Science department.

WOAW continues to receive statements of solidarity from unions at other universities, including the Boston University Graduate Workers Union (BUGWU) and Contract Faculty United (CFU-UAW), the union for full-time continuing contract faculty at New York University.

WOAW is also supported by the Massachusetts branch of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation of unions affiliated with UAW.

Noufeesa Yahyaoui contributed to reporting.

Correction: “The offices of Senator Warren and Senator Markey have not responded to requests for comment.” has been changed to “The offices of Senator Warren and Senator Markey have not confirmed their appearances at the picket lines.” for clarity purposes.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar and Valida Pau.

Wellesley students will only receive a half-unit in courses taught by non-tenure-track faculty members in Wellesley Organized Academic Workers (WOAW) and can register for classes on Saturday, the College announced Thursday morning. 

In an email sent to all students from Provost Courtney Coile and Registrar Carol Shanmugaratnam this morning, all classes taught by Union members are suspended unless in departments where the class is substituted by an instructor or the NTT faculty continues to teach.

For classes with a laboratory component or a high number of minutes like language or studio classes, students will receive full credit for those classes. 

Students will still be considered to satisfy their major, distribution requirements and prerequisites for the classes they have already taken. 

The College will reopen registration for classes on Saturday. Classes will only be at 0.5 units and are mandatory credit/non-credit. Students are expected to attend their new classes starting next Monday, March 31. 

This comes as WOAW began a strike this morning after failing to make significant progress on compensation and workload with the College on their first contract. The News previously reported on the details of disagreements in bargaining. 

This latest policy poses an array of questions for students, especially seniors working to finish their degrees and students whose financial aid or visa status hinges upon their full-time enrollment status. 

The Dean’s Office will host a drop-in Zoom session with the Provost and the Registrar on Friday. The details of the session are not yet available and will be sent out when they are finalized, according to an email sent by the Office of the Class Deans this morning. 

It is not immediately clear how many classes will be opened for registration on Saturday and how many tenure-track faculty will choose to reopen their classes. 

It is also unclear how students and faculty should adapt to enrolling in a class consisting of existing and new students, in terms of class materials, instruction methods and grading with less than one and a half months left in the semester. 

“Students only need to focus on replacing the missing units. Students can select any new course that fits their schedule, including classes in the same block as a class that is no longer meeting during the strike,” said the email. 

The College has yet to provide information for the next steps for students when a tenure-track faculty member may choose not to reopen a class, or the available number of seats do not match the number of students in need of those seats for their enrollment status or academic plans.

The fall 2025 registration that was set to start April 8 will be delayed until further notice. 

In a poll conducted by The Wellesley News on its Instagram page, 44% of those who voted have at least a class taught by NTT faculty and 15% have 3 classes or more.

In a statement to the News, WOAW told the News that they are disappointed in the College’s policy.

“We are disappointed to see that the College has decided to set a precedent in this way— credit for courses has never been revoked from students during an academic strike before, and it is hugely disappointing that Wellesley would use this as a scare tactic to coerce students away from supporting the union. Shifting the blame for this punitive policy to federal requirements on meeting times is disingenuous at best, as the College has the full power to end this strike at any moment, and yet has declined all union offers to bargain at additional times, with no additional sessions scheduled before April 3rd,” said Leah Okumura, Senior Instructor of Science Laboratory of Biological Sciences.

Shortly after this statement was made, the College and the Union will meet for an additional session next Tuesday.

The Wellesley News has reached out to the College, academic departments for comments.

Updated on March 27th to reflect that registration re-opens on Saturday, not Friday.
Updated on March 27, 13:42 pm ET to add WOAW’s statement. 

One pertinent email reached students in 2025 and only because of the direct consequences we might face following the recent strike authorization vote. In this correspondence, the College vowed to prioritize protecting the academic experience in the event of a strike, but, besides this platitude, provided no material information regarding the state of the bargaining process.

Maintaining separation between the Union and student body via this knowledge barrier allows administrators to continue putting a bandaid on the College’s open wound; students, arguably one of the most powerful checks on administrative action, are unable to enforce its accountability to Union demands.

This power dynamic, however, would shift dramatically away from the College if a strike were to be called. On February 21, the Union announced the results of their vote, with an overwhelming majority of 93% in favor of authorizing the implementation of a strike if deemed necessary by the bargaining committee.

This act effectively increased the pressure on the Administration to respond to the demands of WOAW or face the consequences of a disrupted student body and, by extension, a larger community of alums, parents, and other — tenure-track — faculty. The College, however, continues to reject Union proposals on key issues such as dependent care, foreign national employees, tax assistance and child care benefits, while increasing the already egregious teaching load of non-tenure track professors by 25%.

Evidently, the threat of a walkout is insufficient to force the Administration’s hand. As a result of this, I am firmly in favor of commencing a Union strike. Such a statement might seem drastic coming from a first-year still adjusting to life at Wellesley, but it is more so evidence that the challenges faced by the Union matter deeply to the student body, even its newest members.

The Wellesley community has always been strongest when it stands together; solidarity with the potential strike is an opportunity for students to acknowledge the decades-long sacrifices made by non-tenure track faculty and to fight to preserve the long-term well-being of the college. A momentary interruption to classes is a small sacrifice, and one that I believe students are largely comfortable with, to achieve fair compensation and working conditions for our professors.

The leveraging power of the potential strike resides in the vastness of WOAW; composed of over 125 non-tenure track and postdoctoral scholars, the Union constitutes approximately 28% of all Wellesley faculty. Despite assurances that the College would “minimize disruptions and ensure the continuity of [its] academic program,” it is highly infeasible that these disruptions would indeed be minor. With more than a quarter of the academic faculty gone, a costly contingency plan would be necessary to cover the immense number of classes taught by Union faculty members. Hiring guest lecturers, hosting online courses and employing adjunct professors are a few ways gaps could be covered in the short term, but maintaining this patchwork solution would be unsustainable due to its monetary costs and organizational complexity.

In addition, the disparities in educational quality between these methods would undoubtedly cause student concern, sowing distrust of the College’s Administration among students. Ultimately, both the strike and the College’s current response tactics would place students in a precarious position — but there would be no escaping community backlash against Administration. I am hopeful and confident that this unified front would force the Administration to make direct concessions to the Union’s demands.

The situation unfolding between the Wellesley Administration and the WOAW Union presents a pivotal moment for our community. The Administration’s lack of transparency and communication regarding the ongoing negotiations has created a significant knowledge gap, leaving students in the dark about the real challenges facing non-tenure track faculty. As we witness the Union’s overwhelming vote in favor of strike authorization, it’s clear that this issue cannot be ignored any longer.

A strike, while disruptive in the short-term, would serve as a necessary step to remind the Administration of the deep value non-tenure faculty bring to the academic experience, and encourage enduring change. The strength of the Wellesley community has always been in its solidarity, and now, more than ever, it is crucial that students stand alongside their non-tenure track professors in support of fairness and equity — in support of a strike.

Contact the editor(s) responsible for this story: Caitlin Donovan

Eligible voters in this election include instructors, lecturers and Mellon postdoctoral fellows who are currently employed by Wellesley College. If the vote passes with a two-thirds majority, the union’s bargaining committee is authorized to call for a strike if necessary.  

According to WOAW, a “yes” vote in the Strike Authorization Vote is an opportunity to “declare forcefully that unless [the College] make[s] significant progress towards a fair contract, they can expect a strike to follow.”

The call for the Strike Authorization Vote from WOAW is coming after claims that the College has stalled on major core-bargaining issues. 

“After 19 bargaining sessions and over 65 hours of face-to-face negotiations, we have not made sufficient progress on our key priorities, including compensation, workload, job security, titles, and prohibitions against discrimination and harassment,” wrote Erin Battat, a senior lecturer in the Writing Program, in an email statement to The News.

WOAW and the College have reached 15 tentative agreements out of 50 proposals, including health and safety, intellectual property, and workplace and materials.

However, the College described the vote as “premature.” In an email sent to faculty and staff on Feb. 14 from Provost Courtney Coile and Chief Human Resources Officer Carolyn Slaboden, they wrote, “It is hard to understand why the union would take this step toward bringing disruption to our students when negotiations are ongoing and in no way at an impasse.”

The main bargaining issues that the College and the Union went back and forth between in their communications are compensation, workload and protections. 

Compensation 

The College argued that their initial salary proposal is “comprehensive and highly competitive,” stating that it would bring “the average salary for all bargaining unit employees (BUEs) to $92,259, well above the average salary in the current market … ”

WOAW claims, however, that a few high earners skew the average under the College’s proposal, and still, 25% of bargaining unit employees (BUEs) make under $68,890.

WOAW unionized to address this particular issue of salary stagnation, pointing out that “the wage gap of $31,000 persists between BUEs who were hired before and after 2008.” 

The union pointed out that K-12 teachers in the region have higher starting salaries and much higher salary growth, to reinforce the efficacy of unionization.

The College describes the union’s proposed compensation plan as “unrealistic.”

On their webpage on Non-Tenure Track Unionization at Wellesley, the College states that “the cost of wages and benefits would more than double, from $12 million to at least $24 million, not including proposals for $5 million in additional benefits.”

At the same time, the College emphasized that they will continue to pursue a contract that is fair and responsible with “respect to the long-term financial health of the College, mindful of both the College’s structural deficit and new financial threats in the current environment.”

Battat highlighted the importance of the union’s organizing efforts at a historically women’s college.

“The people who have most to gain from our efforts are primarily young women stuck in a sexist and hierarchical system — one that devalues teaching as historically ‘women’s work.’ We are fighting to give our members, in the words of President Johnson,  ‘the economy she deserves,’” she wrote.

Workload

The current proposal from the College would require non-tenure track faculty “to teach five courses to retain [their] current salaries,” which, faculty argues, would raise workloads by 25%.

The College argues that the five-course workload distinguishes the role of BUEs from that of tenure track faculty. BUEs primarily teach, while tenure-track faculty are responsible for teaching, research, scholarship and extensive College and professional service obligations. According to the College, the “proposal is consistent with the teaching load at the majority of peer institutions, where lecturers teach five to six courses per academic year.” 

WOAW-UAW rebutted this justification from the College as an attempt “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.”

Protections

Coile refuted the union’s claim that the College is refusing standard union protection for harassment and discrimination. She continued, “To be clear, the College’s proposal prohibits such discrimination and allows for the union to take such cases to arbitration after an internal review.”

The union maintained that it is a standard union protection to be able to enforce the contract by filing a grievance and that should hold for claims of discrimination and harassment.

The College stated that if the Strike Authorization Vote is passed and if the union bargaining team decides to call a strike, the College will remain committed to prioritizing students’ academic experience. 

“While we are hopeful this will not be the case, the College is actively preparing for a variety of contingencies to minimize disruptions and ensure the continuity of our academic program for our students.”

The Wellesley News reached out to the College with a request for comment. The College stated that they have no further comment at this time beyond the email they sent to faculty members.

“We have stayed in these unfair positions because we love working with our colleagues and we love our students. But enough is enough. Ultimately, our struggle to win fair compensation and working conditions will benefit everyone,” wrote Battat. 

The vote for the strike authorization is ongoing and will end at 11:59 P.M. on Feb. 20. Results will be announced the next day on Friday, Feb. 21.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Galeta Sandercock and Valida Pau

Updated on February 20, 2025.