More than two dozen collective bargaining agreements now include language covering artificial intelligence in their newsrooms. There are some gold standard examples that cover three priorities: protection of bargaining unit work, clearly defining the scope of AI and requiring interaction and oversight by bargaining unit employees to create work products.
While generative artificial intelligence is not new, the pace of advancement has been almost exponential in the last decade. As the technology improves, more employers have introduced and expanded its use in the absence of clear regulation or guidance. Some employers have been publicly embarrassed for publishing false, misleading or problematic posts.
The use of artificial intelligence to perform bargaining unit work is a mandatory subject of bargaining, but employers are reluctant to agree to contract terms that set enforceable parameters around the use of ever evolving technology. Guild members escalated actions including going on strike to win language to protect their work standards, job security and provide better transparency for the public.
Members have engaged in public-facing campaigns such as the Politico PEN Guild’s “Journalists, Not Robots” social media action. The Ziff Davis Guild built overwhelming member support for internal actions that pushed management to accept strong contract language.
The New Republic won language that says generative AI “may be used by bargaining unit employees as a complementary tool in editorial work, but it may not be used as a primary tool for creation of such.” And further, it states that AI shall not result in layoffs, to fill vacant positions or result in reducing pay for Guild-represented workers. Other contracts have similar language that sets these clear lines that the employers may not cross when introducing or expanding the use of AI in the workplace. While some contracts may not completely prohibit AI from reducing or eliminating bargaining unit work, they provide for transfers to other roles with appropriate training and enhanced severance for employees who do not continue employment.
Another common provision is the requirement that members receive training on the use of AI, including how its use complies with ethical standards. This type of training and clarity is especially important if members could potentially be disciplined for improper use of AI.
Other contracts include language that requires the clear labeling of any content that was generated by or with assistance from AI technology. The Ziff Davis agreement says that if the company “uses AI to create, curate, or modify, in whole or in part, any content appearing in the same publication in which bylines of current or former bargaining unit employees appear (‘AI-Generated Content’), the Company must clearly identify it as “‘AI-Generated Content’” using several guidelines to provide transparency and disclosure, including multimedia content.
NewsGuild members have been creative by drafting language that is responsive to the potential uses for AI in their shop. Because this is a dynamic technology, many contracts also require the formation of a joint committee of union and management representatives to be a forum for conversation and information sharing.
The New York Times Tech workers won a contract after striking for eight days that creates a committee “to discuss the potential impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” The committee is required to meet semi-annually at the request of the Guild.
Less than two years ago, NewsGuild members participated in a study, showing their support for stronger campaigns against AI denigrating our work and showing solidarity for the Hollywood strikes, where AI was a major theme.
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to bargaining for AI protections, but there are best practices that our members are proud to share. If you are a NewsGuild-CWA member, leader or staffer who wants to learn more, email dnewsome@cwa-union.org to be invited to our quarterly AI meetings and gain access to member resources.