UE Local 1498 ratified a three-and-a-half year contract on November 22, following seven grueling weeks at the bargaining table with their employer, New Mexico State University. The contract fight included management stalling and stonewalling in the bargaining room, imposing deadlines to finish bargaining, calling police to a peaceful action by the membership, and changing bargaining locations multiple times to restrict members’ access and attempt to isolate the bargaining committee. Despite the tough negotiations, members were able to win their top priority – more tuition coverage.

The local’s members, graduate workers who teach and conduct research at New Mexico’s public land-grant university, were faced with an expiring contract at the end of the year. The new agreement, brokered with only a few weeks remaining in the semester, includes six credits of tuition coverage – a priority for members – that can be stacked on top of coverage from other sources, a two percent wage increase, and the ability to reopen negotiations on tuition coverage and wages every March. Denials of leave requests must now be in writing, the lead time for management providing contract letters for employment has been lengthened, workers have an extra day to delay an investigatory meeting if they cannot find an available steward to represent them, and outcomes from labor management committee meetings can now be reduced to writing and formalized as a memorandum of agreement between the parties.

Identifying Widespread Needs

On the evening of September 10, UE Local 1498 members ratified five bargaining priorities at the local’s monthly general membership meeting, after a survey collected responses about bargaining priorities from members over the summer. Soon after, the bargaining committee delivered their intent to bargain to administration on NMSU campus, with a rally which included speeches from union leadership.

Energy was high as the priorities for the upcoming bargaining season came into focus: tuition coverage, a wage increase, paid time off, a streamlined health insurance reimbursement process, and a centralized job board for assistantship postings. These five priorities affect members across the local and span workplaces and job descriptions. “The graduate workers at NMSU are a diverse group of 1000 scholars with vastly different experiences based on their field of study, their specific department, and even what state or country they're coming from,” said bargaining committee member Ezra Huscher. “It was clear that connecting with as many of these folks as possible was the only way to seek out the most widespread needs around campus. We held in-person discussions and conducted a series of surveys to seek out these concerns, big and small.”

The issue that rose to the top of the local’s priorities was winning improvements in tuition remission. New Mexico State University does not offer full tuition coverage to graduate workers, and when paying full tuition, the average graduate worker at NMSU can fall below the federal poverty line.

A Battle at the Bargaining Table

Bargaining began on October 9, with the union and university negotiating teams meeting in a previously unused bargaining location on campus, access to which was highly restricted. As had become the norm, an armed police officer was present outside the bargaining room. It quickly became clear that the location would severely hinder the ability of the local to turn members out to bargaining sessions, and preparations were made to switch to a new location. Little progress was made in the first session, with the university wasting time by attempting to impose restrictive ground rules, which the local’s team refused. President of Local 1498 and bargaining committee member Lindley Hornsby said, “As a UE local whose lifeblood is our membership, we said ‘hell no!’ to such an egregious proposition and further, we demanded a new bargaining location that equally served both parties.  Even though the employer tried to make us feel as though we were subservient to them, we continually reminded them that we are on equal terms.”

After another slow session in the same restricted-access location, with management working to strip current rights from graduate workers, the teams agreed to a new location that was accessible. Organizing began for an action that would bring members to the building to put pressure on the university and join in a caucus with the union bargaining committee to discuss the economic counterproposals presented by the university. The newly formed Contract Action Team (CAT) was behind the organizing and led organizing efforts for the duration of the bargaining season. “Camaraderie is central to the process, especially when we're having to negotiate in such frustrating conditions, and having a body of directly engaged members was a real boon to morale and mobilization,” said CAT member Gus Enger. “We had the space to collaborate with our collective expertise and varied skills, and I think that was key to getting so many new cards signed in the relatively short window that we had.”

Members discussing issues with the bargaining committee during a caucus in negotiations on November 6.

The following week, members turned out and turned up the heat. Management refused to begin bargaining until three armed police officers were present to ensure that no members “threatened their safety.” Meanwhile, the graduate workers present stood silently with signs, not obstructing access to the bargaining room or causing any harm. While waiting for hours to join the caucus, many kept working, grading assignments or doing their research while sitting on the floor and holding their ground.

“We spent a lot of time getting people there to make a point about what’s going on in bargaining, and we were really focusing on being civil and making our voices heard while making sure we weren’t instigating anything,” said CAT member Caedmon Ragland, who served as one of the hall captains for the action. “It really did surprise me that they brought two more people with guns, when all we were doing was standing there.”

Members ready to make their presence known before the session began (first photo) and with signs outside the bargaining room during negotiations (second photo) on November 6 .

“The impact of member involvement”

“We definitely saw the impact of member involvement in this round of bargaining,” said Communications Chair Caroline Klocksiem, who agreed about the efficacy of the action. “Having members available to caucus during bargaining solidified our priorities and strengthened our resolve, and our peaceful demonstration throughout the bargaining day drew the attention of students and press. The fact that our employer felt it was necessary to have several armed police officers present throughout the day speaks volumes about the heavy-handed power wielding and lack of dignity we experience at our workplace.”

Following this successful action that visibly shook the university’s bargaining team, management contacted the union’s bargaining team the afternoon before the next session. Citing “safety concerns,” management abruptly changed the location for where the teams were scheduled to meet, dictating that bargaining would be held on the very edge of campus. Recognizing this violation of a verbal agreement between the two parties to mutually agree on bargaining locations within 48 hours’ notice of any changes, the union’s bargaining team waited for management at the originally agreed upon location. Management did not show. 

“Throughout the entire time of bargaining, it felt like a very one-sided conversation,” said Chief Steward Juan Gil.. “So, I liked how, when they changed the location on us with very short notice, we let them know where we stood, how unprofessional it felt, and how inconvenient the sudden change made it for everyone on our team.

“I felt like ever since we did that, the conversations following seemed to be more back and forth, and we did manage to finish in a timely manner with what I feel is a good outcome. I believe that us planting our feet down and saying ‘no, you will listen!’ contributed to us reaching an agreement.”

Final Session and Ratification

The last scheduled bargaining session was held on November 22, and per the union’s request, the two teams met at a new location, the fourth location across eight sessions. Six hours and many tense debates later, the parties agreed on a tentative agreement. Reflecting on the bargaining season as a whole, Vice President Riley Schaner said, “During our time negotiating with them, they did not want to recognize us as equals. It was really challenging because they were calling all the shots about where we were holding negotiations, when we could hold negotiations, which articles we could negotiate on, etc. It seemed like they wanted nothing to do with us and were often not bargaining in good faith. It took us a long time to [agree on] a few articles but then we got many done at the end, so it really wasn’t about the content but was rather about power and control, how much they had of it.”

The union’s elections committee swiftly got to work preparing communications and the ballot, and the bargaining committee held a town hall on December 2 to inform the membership about what the contract contained. Ratification was unanimous, with 69 percent of the membership voting. The new contract will go into effect on January 1, 2025. Though not everything aimed for was won in the contract fight, the local succeeded in building its leadership and organizing capacity to prepare for contract enforcement and future bargaining seasons. “This victory, hard won against significant opposition, exemplifies the power of solidarity and collective action and is a significant step forward,” said bargaining committee member Abdul Al-Nouman.

“I'm very proud of our bargaining committee for negotiating an entire contract ourselves; this is a huge milestone for our Local,” said President Hornsby. “I am deeply inspired by our Contract Action Team which fought tirelessly to organize around negotiations, often mobilizing on short notice to militantly remind the employer that grad workers run this university.  By shining a light on NMSU's continued union-busting and poor allocation of resources, this contract fight yielded a new crop of organizers that will maintain the fight for dignified wages and working conditions after our inaugural organizers graduate and move on to raise hell at their next place of employment.”

The UE Local 1498 bargaining committee consisted of President Lindley Hornsby, Vice President Riley Schaner, Chief Stewards Alexander Allison and Juan Gil, and College Representatives Ezra Huscher and Abdul Al-Nouman. They were assisted by UE Field Organizer Jason Santos.

Research Director Karl Zimmerman, Staff Coordinator Kimberly Lawson, General Counsel Nicholas Stonecypher, and Digital Organizer Samantha Cooney also made contributions towards the campaign.

The UE Local 1498 bargaining committee (left to right): Ezra Huscher, Alexander Allison, Juan Gil, Abdul Al-Nouman, Lindley Hornsby, and Riley Schaner.