On Thursday, the College and Student Worker Collective at Dartmouth will meet for a fifth bargaining session to renegotiate a new student dining worker contract, according to the Office of Labor Relations website. The current contract, which was ratified in February 2023, expires on March 18.
The SWCD is also negotiating a separate contract for undergraduate advisors, who voted to unionize and join the SWCD in May 2024. The College and SWCD previously held bargaining sessions on Nov. 7, 2024, Dec. 12, 2024, Jan. 23 and Feb. 13, during which they discussed wage negotiations.
If a new agreement is not reached by March 18, the union will likely ask to extend the current contract by “a couple weeks to a month,” according to SWCD co-chair Roan Wade ’25.
“We would hope that the College would continue to honor our previous agreement,” Wade said.
Ahead of the March 6 session, the SWCD plans to push for its proposals for better compensation and international and undocumented student protection — both formally introduced at the fourth bargaining session on Feb. 13, Wade said. SWCD is also working to identify “legal precedent” so that they may re-propose proposals rejected by the College, Wade added.
Meanwhile, the College’s bargaining committee is reviewing SWCD’s remaining proposals and “hopes to hear back” about other proposals already presented, according to College spokesperson Jana Barnello.
“The Dartmouth bargaining committee is reviewing the remaining seven proposals and counter proposals it has received from SWCD to prepare responses and hopes to hear back from the SWCD on any of the 16 proposals and counter-proposals Dartmouth has presented for their consideration,” Barnello wrote.
At the fourth bargaining session on Feb. 13, the SWCD proposed “further protections for international and non-citizen students,” modeled on language from the New School’s graduate student contract, according to Wade. The proposal asks that the College refuse entry to any College-owned buildings to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “except as required by law.”
“Because we are a private institution, the College has more jurisdiction over who they allow onto campus,” Wade said. “Because of that, we are asking the College to wait until there is a warrant signed by a district court judge before they allow ICE onto campus.”
Barnello wrote that the College’s existing protocol suggests that community members immediately contact the Department of Safety and Security if they encounter ICE agents on campus. Safety and Security will then work with the Office of the General Counsel to “assess the legality of what federal agents are requesting,” Barnello added.
“Dartmouth is committed to protecting the privacy and rights of its community members within the framework of the law,” Barnello wrote.
Barnello also directed The Dartmouth to a document from the Office of Visa and Immigration Services that advises community members on how to respond to visits from law enforcement agencies.
In the Feb. 13 meeting, the SWCD also proposed raising the base wage for student dining workers from $21 to $23 per hour, with yearly increases “align[ed] with the tuition rate of increase,” according to SWCD organizing committee member Hosaena Tilahun ’25. Under the proposal, undergraduate advisors — who receive a $2,000 base stipend instead of hourly wages — would also see their base stipend rise to $4,100.
Wade said the student union used the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator to factor in the cost of living in New Hampshire.
“We do know that the Upper Valley, in Hanover specifically, when you look at the graphs that they have of the state, it is a major spike in cost of living expenses,” Wade said.
The current student worker contract stipulates that the base wage “increases by one-half the percentage increase in the cost of attendance,” according to public bargaining updates from the Office of Labor Relations. The College has proposed a 3% annual raise in base pay for dining workers and UGAs — higher than the 2% that was required under the current contract.
“Under Dartmouth’s proposal, the dining workers and UGAs would receive a larger wage increase than the contract provided for last year and Dartmouth’s proposal would guarantee the wage increase will not fluctuate based on the rate of tuition,” the OLR wrote.
At the Jan. 23 bargaining session, the College responded to a list of the union’s proposals from November and December of 2024, including requests for priority hiring for students of high financial need, a grievance resolution process before work-related disciplinary action against student workers and non-cooperation with federal and state authorities for peaceful union-related activities, according to the ORL.
The College rejected one-third of the proposals as “outside the scope of collective bargaining for a labor contract,” rejected 12 other proposals for individual reasons, made counter-proposals for four proposals, requested a formal SWCD proposal for compensation and requested response to 13 of the College’s proposals, according to Barnello.
“While some of the initial proposals by SWCD fell outside the scope of their employment at Dartmouth, we will continue to bargain in good faith about the wages, hours and other working conditions of their employee roles,” Barnello wrote.
After the Jan. 23 session, the union published an Instagram post accusing the College of threatening to roll back the campus-wide $16.25 minimum wage, “automate jobs” and comply with ICE and the Hanover Police Department in “legal matters concerning UGAs and [dining] workers.”
Barnello wrote that the SWCD’s “characterizations” of the Jan. 23 meeting on social media were not an “accurate representation” of the College’s statements during the bargaining session.
“Dartmouth did not propose to roll back wages,” Barnello wrote. “Instead, Dartmouth requested a wage proposal from SWCD because the original wage demands presented by SWCD at the November bargaining session were ambiguous.”
Barnello added that the College did not threaten to comply with ICE or reference ICE in its statements.
Upper Valley minister Gail Kinney, who attended the Jan. 23 session, said in an interview at a Feb. 12 “practice picket rally” — held to raise public awareness about the negotiations — that she found the College’s lead negotiator to be “hostile.” According to Kinney, the negotiator exhibited an “overall refusal” to “engage in appropriate back and forth” with the union during the Jan. 23 session.
“The students had put forward proposals, and they were expecting responses to specific proposals,” Kinney said. “[The lead negotiator] was reading kind of from a script, and she just said, ‘We’re not going to do this. We’re not going to do this. We’re not going to do this. We’re not going to do this.’ And it was rapid fire.”
However, Wade said the Feb. 13 session marked a “significant shift” from the previous meeting on Jan. 23 because the College’s bargaining committee “listen[ed] to what we were proposing.” Tilahun agreed, adding that the bargaining committee’s “tune change[d] completely” at the fourth meeting, even though no proposal was accepted.
“They didn’t accept our proposal, but they at least heard our legal and moral reasoning behind it,” Tilahun said.
According to Barnello, discussions at the Feb. 13 meeting were “productive,” and the College’s bargaining committee “left with a better understanding of the concerns SWCD’s proposals and counter-proposals were addressing.”
Kelsey Wang is a reporter and editor for The Dartmouth from the greater Seattle area, majoring in history and government. Outside of The D, she likes to crochet, do jigsaw puzzles and paint.
