Wellesley Organized Academic Workers (WOAW-UAW) voted to authorize its bargaining committee to call a strike, passing with an overwhelming majority of 93% of the vote, on Feb. 21.

The College and the Union have gone back and forth on the three key issues of compensation, workload and protections, which prompted WOAW-UAW to call the strike authorization vote. 

The Wellesley News sat down with both the College and WOAW’s bargaining committee to better understand each side’s positions on core bargaining issues.
In an exclusive interview with The News, Provost Courtney Coile and Chief Human Resources Officer Carolyn Slaboden said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the Union’s act of calling for a vote, particularly while negotiations between the College and Union are still ongoing.

Following the announcement, Coile and Slaboden sent out an email to all faculty and students, emphasizing that the vote passing does not mean that a strike will follow.

The College currently has two other unions, including the Independent Maintenance and Service Employees’ Union of America (IMSEUA), and Slaboden said the College is “very familiar with working in a unionized environment.” 

Slaboden stressed the importance of this first contract between WOAW-UAW and the College as “a foundational piece to future contracts” which generally takes between 12-18 months to settle. 

“We’ve acquired the nine-month mark and continue to bargain in good faith with the union,” said Slaboden.

Compensation

In the College’s proposed compensation plan, the College touts competitive wage increases, with a total 3.7% wage increase in the bargaining unit salary line for the first contract year. This includes a 2.5% across-the-board raise for all unit employees and additional increases for union employees at the lower end of the wage scale. 

Coile stated that under the new plan, bargaining-unit employees (BUEs) would receive an average salary of $92,259 in the first year of their contract, well above the average market salary in the market for lecturers of $82,000, according to the American Association of University Professors. 

The College insisted that its proposal is “fair and highly competitive,” based on market research at peer institutions. Battat, on behalf of the Union bargaining committee, dismissed the compensation plan as a “nonstarter.” 

Battat argued that annual increases are standard practice across industries to offset inflation, resulting in no real wage gain.

Brubaker noted that this proposed 2.5% increase falls short of past inflation-adjusting raises, which have ranged from 2% to 4% in recent years.

The College did not specify the exact institutions they referred to as “peer institutions.” For context, in 2024, a visiting lecturer at Williams College was paid $64,900 while a lecturer in Mathematics at Amherst College received $80,000, according to data on the H1B Salary Database.

Coile continued by noting that the College provides “generous benefits,” adding 35% on top of salary in terms of the cost of the College.

The College pushed back strongly on the Union’s proposed compensation plan.

“As you know, I am an economist, but I have to admit that I am having trouble understanding where the Union salary numbers are coming from,” Coile said.

WOAW has lowered their demanded minimum salary from $105,700 to $90,000 in their latest proposal, submitted on Feb. 27.

Disclaimer: The data is an estimate and may be subject to change. 

Based on the original 6-figure starting salary demand, the College claimed that the Union’s proposal would more than double the salaries for BUEs at a cost of $12 million, with extra proposed benefits adding another $5 million. 

To put the number into context, $17 million is roughly equivalent to the cost of full financial aid for 190 students, according to Coile. 

“They have not offered any market rationale for their proposal to raise the minimum starting salary to $105,000,” said Coile, noting that the figure exceeds starting pay for tenured faculty. 

Slaboden emphasized the College’s long-term fiscal health in negotiations, while Coile argued that drastically increasing non-tenure track faculty compensation would impact other priorities.

“It’s not possible for us to do so much for one group of employees at the College without harming other groups and without harming our ability to carry out our mission.”

Workload

The College’s current proposal would require non-tenure-track faculty “to teach five courses to retain [their] current salaries,” a move, faculty argue, that would raise workloads by 25%.

The College counters that many BUEs have already taught five courses per academic year. All visiting lecturers teach five courses, and more than 20% of other BUEs voluntarily took on extra courses last year.

Brubaker felt that this claim was disingenuous since non-tenure-track faculty are often pressured to teach more courses to support their departments.

“We want to be good citizens, and the reappointment process is more fragile. We’re doing overloads to make ends meet because we’re not being fairly compensated,” Brubaker said.

“The fact that we have taken [on] five courses per year doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a cost to the education we can deliver and a cost to our own selves,” Battat added.

The College, in response, points to “extremely high” student satisfaction from student feedback in Learning Experience Reflection (LERs), regardless of whether instructors teach four or five courses. 

Coile then emphasized that while tenure-track faculty teach only four courses a year, they have significant research and College service responsibilities that non-tenure-track faculty do not.

Protections

The College and WOAW are also at odds about “when” grievance procedures should be enacted. 

The Union proposes that once a complaint is filed, a grievance can be initiated alongside the Title IX process. In contrast, the College’s proposal allows Union members to proceed with a grievance after 120 days, allowing time for internal review by trained personnel in the Office of Nondiscrimination.

Battat gave an example of how grievance procedures protect Union employees under their proposal. If a BUE is being harassed or stalked, they can ask the College to change their office location so they feel safe. If denied, the BUE can file a grievance.

“Our grievance procedure is not punitive and has nothing to do with the respondent. We are saying to believe people within reason,” Battat said.

The College, however, holds that the Union’s approach bypasses critical time for “independent, trained fact-finding.” 

“Only a sequential process ensures fairness and avoids the unnecessary confusion and inconsistencies that would inevitably result from having both a labor arbitration and an internal review proceed at the same time,” wrote Tara Murphy, Vice President of Communications, Public Affairs and Global Engagement, in a statement to The News.

Going forward

Regarding their strategy after the vote has been passed, Battat has said that the Union plans to bargain productively, offering the College as many bargaining dates as possible within their schedules.

Brubaker said that some Union members are already having conversations with students in classrooms to help them understand where the Union is in the negotiation process.

Similarly, Slaboden said, “When we get back in the room, nothing changes. From my perspective, we have been working on preparing counter proposals for the Union, and we will meet with them and bargain in good faith, as we always have.”

College leaders are actively developing contingency plans to ensure the College is prepared to maintain academic programs and other operations, including campus safety, in the event of any strike-related disruptions. 

“As teaching-focused faculty, students are our top priority. That really is guiding our vision in negotiation. If we did go on strike, it would be a short-term challenge that would result in a long-term benefit not only for students here today but for future generations of Wellesley students,” Battat said.

Valida Pau contributed to reporting.