Fellows Go Public: GLO Pushes to Bring Every Grad Worker Under One Contract
On April 13, GLO took its biggest swing yet of this bargaining cycle: a formal proposal to bring fellows into the bargaining unit for the first time, ensuring every graduate worker at Brown—regardless of funding source—is covered by the same contract, for their entire time with the institution.
The Problem: Floating In and Out of Protection
Right now, grad workers move in and out of union coverage depending on how they're funded each semester. A student on an RA or TA appointment is protected by the contract. The same student, doing the same work, on a fellowship semester, is not. GLO's bargaining committee argued this patchwork leaves hundreds of workers exposed at exactly the moments they may need protection most.
The numbers are hard to ignore: the majority of GSEs spend time on fellowship at some point in their graduate career. Hundreds of fellows (76%+) have already signed cards indicating they want union representation. GLO's position is straightforward: fellows are doing the same labor, in the same labs, under the same supervisors, and should have the same protections. Brown almost always receives, controls, and manages external grants. Cumulatively, this means they remain responsible for our working conditions and pay.
The Legal Case
GLO grounded the proposal in Rhode Island law. RI H5187 explicitly defines "employee" to include teaching assistants, research assistants, fellows, residential assistants, and proctors who perform services for compensation. GLO argues this language settles the question of fellows' right to organize, regardless of whether their work is also part of their academic training.
GLO laid out three core arguments: fellows' labor directly benefits Brown's research and teaching mission; fellows deserve access to the same grievance procedures and protections as any other GSE; and state law already recognizes their right to representation.
The Testimony: What Happens Without Protection
Two testimonials anchored the case in lived experience.
Mansi, a first-year PhD student on fellowship, described a research advisor who allegedly tolerated discriminatory comments about her immigration status, excluded her from professional opportunities after she shared a religious holiday with her lab, and disparaged her for taking time to manage a concussion and a family death. When she sought help from a Dean's office, she says her advisor sent unsolicited negative feedback to faculty she was trying to transfer to, derailing her attempt to find a new lab. As a fellow, she had no contract or grievance procedure to fall back on. Her discriminatory advisor sought to kick her out of Brown.
Patrick, a fourth-year PhD candidate and NIH fellow, described having his federal diversity fellowship abruptly terminated mid-dissertation due to a shift in federal policy, leaving him, as principal investigator, to navigate the fallout largely alone. His funding was later restored through a lawsuit, but he argued that external fellows are uniquely exposed when university support varies, and that bargaining unit protections would offer a safeguard federal funding volatility can't.
Brown's Response: A Flat Denial
Brown's answer was unambiguous. Ben Trachman told the room that Brown is outright denying GLO's request for voluntary recognition of fellows. (Notably, this was after refusing to consider GLO’s own prepared arguments, meaning Brown had made their mind up before argumentation or evidence.) His reasoning: fellowship work is academic in nature, not "services performed for" the university in the way the NLRA defines employment, and bringing fellows into the unit would carry financial and logistical complications, including the fact that fellows don't currently pay union dues. (Notably, 76%+ of fellows were willing to pay relevant dues and fees, as they would be small compared to the wins and raises possible and likely as a unionized collective.)
Brown's denial drew a pointed rebuttal from GLO. Michael noted that the university itself treats fellowship stipends as taxable income, and that many fellows already pay dues voluntarily because they want a seat at the table. Co-Chairs went further, reminding Ben of his own words from an earlier session: "I'm not here to split hairs on who is or isn't in the BU, they're all in the BU in my eyes." What changed?
Brown did leave room for partial movement, indicating it may be willing to negotiate other elements of Article 1 and Article 6 separately from the fellows question, rather than rejecting the articles in full.
Also on the Table: Workplace Safety and AI Likeness Rights
The session included two more flashpoints. A testimonial from David detailed a two-month delay in receiving a standing desk accommodation for a severe spinal injury and laid the case for GLO's first-ever Workplace Health and Safety article. GLO also pressed Brown on why it had struck language barring AI reproduction of a grad worker's voice or likeness without consent; Brown cited unresolved FERPA questions, a response GLO's team found difficult to reconcile with a protection they see as basic, uncontroversial, and inherently respecting privacy.
What's Next
Brown's formal written response on the fellows question was expected the same afternoon. With Kasper unavailable in May, the next session date remains unconfirmed. Both teams will continue exchanging counters by email in the meantime, with bargaining likely to resume after the semester ends.
Questions? Reach out: comms@glounion.org
