SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
sag-aftra
Bargaining to Save Our Jobs from Artificial Intelligence
There is broad and deep recognition that AI technology will reshape the future of work, and unions have decided to roll up their sleeves (and dust off their picket signs) to bargain how AI will be implemented, to do what, and to what effect.
May 07, 2026
For many pundits and policymakers, there is little doubt that Artificial Intelligence will devour the jobs of millions of people, including professionals formerly presumed immune to technological replacement. The only question is how many jobs will be lost, how quickly. In fact, there is nothing inevitable about AI—not its development, its deployment, or its impact. Massive job losses are not inherent in the algorithm, preordained by the laws of nature and physics. Rather than remaining struck by awe, we can reassert human agency over this technology. We can not only save jobs, but perhaps even make them better.
AI is not an abstract force that operates solely at the macroeconomic level. AI systems and agents are developed and implemented in ways specific to each sector, each workplace, each type of job. Although employers might focus myopically on cutting their wage bill, their employees know firsthand how the work actually gets done. They know what disclosures to request about how the technology would be used. They know how AI might affect the content and flow of their work, what training would be most helpful, and which implementations would be most likely to devalue their labor versus those most likely to enhance it. Thus, the most effective way to ensure that AI makes work life better and not worse is to empower workers to bargain about it.
By “workers” I mean people who rely on their own labor to earn a living—which is to say, most of us, whether we write reports, treat patients, teach kids, manufacture products, or stock warehouses. AI is not something that’s going to happen only to other people; it will affect all of us.
Workers need the authority and the power to bargain about the implementation of AI in the workplace, not just the effects. “Effects bargaining” is the traditional approach: After a technology has wiped out jobs, people negotiate a little severance pay to tide them over, and maybe some training for completely different jobs, if any such jobs exist. By contrast, our goal should be to make sure workers can negotiate for technology that makes their jobs better, more productive, more valuable. To avoid the car crash in the first place, if you will, and not just to apportion damages afterward.
AI will not destroy or devalue our jobs by itself, unless we let it.
One can imagine some objections to this approach. Some people might insist that AI is in irresistible force, that large-scale job destruction is inevitable, and that our task is to figure out other things for people to do to earn a living—or, if that’s not possible, to pay them a small stipend so they don’t starve. This defeatism is a short step away from the more nihilistic vision of the pure doomers, who think it might already be too late to save humanity from machine-led destruction. I love science fiction myself—but it is fiction, not history.
Another objection might be that placing restraints of any kind on AI companies in the United States will keep the industry from winning the global race for dominance. This is the Trump administration’s view. This logic is inverted. Nations should be governed for the benefit of their people, not just their Big Tech companies. Both the Republican and Democratic parties proclaim themselves to be the champions of the American worker. If so, the real triumph for the nation would be to ensure that technology enhances work and makes working people’s lives better, not to create havoc and economic devastation across the labor market.
Some might object that it is unrealistic to think that working people have the interest or ability to intervene effectively, to exercise their right to bargain about AI technology. But that is exactly what has been happening in the entertainment industry. One of the central issues in the 2023 strike by the Writers Guild of America against the Hollywood studios and producers was the use of AI in writers’ workplaces. The Guild represents the professionals who create scripts for TV and streaming series and for feature films. In late 2022 Open AI revealed that ChatGPT could write—coherently and at some length. Although the union did not conclude that robots had suddenly become capable of crafting award-winning scripts, Guild members recognized that their employers could use AI to do just enough to degrade and devalue their work.
During contract talks in 2023 the Guild proposed—and won, after a five-month strike—language that puts meaningful guardrails on the use of AI. These guardrails reflect the process writers and studios actually use to create characters and stories and full-length projects. They ensure that AI cannot be used to deprive writers of the opportunity to do the full range of writing work, and they deprive employers of the economic incentive to replace professional writers with algorithms. Guild members knew how to defend their careers, and they fought for meaningful protections.
The Guild members’ willingness to take on the AI issue, rather than passively accept that the technology would hollow out their careers, resonated with working people everywhere. The actors’ union (SAG AFTRA) also struck and won contract protections on AI, and the following year the other entertainment industry unions did the same. The entire labor movement has made workplace AI a top priority. There is broad and deep recognition that AI technology will reshape the future of work, and unions have decided to roll up their sleeves (and dust off their picket signs) to bargain how AI will be implemented, to do what, to what effect.
AI systems do not develop themselves; AI companies do. AI does not implement itself in the workplace; employers do. AI will not destroy or devalue our jobs by itself, unless we let it. Working people can and must protect their livelihoods by bargaining over AI implementation. Nothing less than the future of work is at stake.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hollywood Union Says AI-Generated Tilly Norwood 'Not an Actor'
The synthetic performer, says SAG-AFTRA, is "a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers—without permission or compensation."
Sep 30, 2025
Screen actors and their union are among those who on Tuesday condemned a computer-generated "actress" created by a newly launched artificial intelligence studio as "not a replacement for a human being," while urging talent agencies to eschew signing synthetic performers.
Billed as Hollywood's first artificial intelligence actor, "Tilly Norwood" was introduced by Particle 6 founder and CEO Eline Van der Velden, who has launjched a new venture called Xicoia, the "world's first AI talent studio."
One of over 40 digital personalities Xicoia says it aims to develop, Norwood has attracted the attention of real-life talent agents—a development that has drawn condemnation from the powerful Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union, which represents more than 160,000 performers in film, television, voice acting, video games, and other media.
“SAG-AFTRA believes creativity is, and should remain, human-centered," the union said in a statement Tuesday, adding that it is "opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics."
The union continued:
To be clear, "Tilly Norwood" is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers—without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion, and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience. It doesn’t solve any “problem”—it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.
"Additionally, signatory producers should be aware that they may not use synthetic performers without complying with our contractual obligations, which require notice and bargaining whenever a synthetic performer is going to be used," SAG-AFTRA added.
Individual actors also slammed Norwood's rollout, with Melissa Barrera—who has starred in films including Scream and In the Heights—taking aim at any agent who might be tempted to represent the AI character.
“Hope all actors repped by the agent that does this, drop their a$$," Barrera said. "How gross, read the room."
Natasha Lyonne, star of Russian Doll and director of Uncanny Valley, said: "Any talent agency that engages in this should be boycotted by all guilds. Deeply misguided and totally disturbed. Not the way. Not the vibe. Not the use.”
Veteran television actor Chris McKenna addressed those who think Norwood "will only replace actors," writing on social media that the AI creation "needs no hairstylist, makeup, wardrobe, lighting, direction, transportation, rest, or lunch... the trickledown will be devastating."
Van der Velden defended her creation in a Sunday Instagram post, writing, “To those who have expressed anger over the creation of my AI character, Tilly Norwood, she is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work—a piece of art."
“Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity," she added.
SAG-AFTRA has long opposed the use of AI performers, making the issue a key part of its 2023 strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and last year's video game strike. The union has also backed legislation at the federal and state level to regulate AI.
The 2023 strike, which lasted 118 days, ended with SAG-AFTRA winning concessions including explicit consent, notification, and bargaining for the use of AI replicas of performers and safeguards against digitally generated characters replacing human actors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Kimmel Suspension, 400+ Entertainers Rip Government Campaign to ‘Pressure’ Them Into Silence
"In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board," the letter said.
Sep 22, 2025
After the Trump administration successfully pressured ABC to kick Jimmy Kimmel off the air last week, hundreds of artists signed an open letter Monday denouncing the government's campaign to "pressure" entertainers and journalists into silence.
The letter, organized by the ACLU, was signed by numerous household names, including Jason Bateman, Jamie Lee Curtis, Ariana DeBose, Jane Fonda, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Regina King, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Diego Luna, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Natalie Portman, Olivia Rodrigo, Martin Short, and Ramy Youssef.
"Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation for Kimmel’s remarks. This is a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation," the letter says. "This is unconstitutional and un-American. The government is threatening private companies and individuals that the president disagrees with. We can’t let this threat to our freedom of speech go unanswered."
Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation, marking a dark moment for free speech in our nation.More than 400 artists across our nation signed on to say: We refuse to be silenced by those in power.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) September 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Kimmel's suspension came hours after the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened to revoke the broadcast license of ABC News affiliates unless the network pulled the comedian's late-night show off the air following comments he made criticizing the President Donald Trump's reaction to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Major entertainment unions have condemned Kimmel's suspension, including SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, which organized demonstrations in Times Square and outside ABC's parent company Disney over the weekend that drew hundreds of protesters, while some actors have pledged to stop working with Disney until Kimmel is reinstated.
In subsequent days, Trump continued to issue threats to the media, suggesting that he would seek to strip the broadcasting licenses of networks that give him "bad press," saying, "They’re not allowed to do that.”
The letter says that "In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees."
Members of the Trump administration, including JD Vance, have also promoted a wide-ranging campaign to have private citizens reported to their employers over critical comments they made about Kirk following his assassination.
Students for Trump National Chair Ryan Fournier created a database with tens of thousands of social media accounts and has boasted of having gotten dozens of people fired over their posts, many of which simply state disagreement with Kirk even without endorsing his assassination.
"We know this moment is bigger than us and our industry. Teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities, students, and so many more are also facing direct attacks on their freedom of expression," the letter says. "Regardless of our political affiliation, or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country. We also share the belief that our voices should never be silenced by those in power—because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us."
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, described these blacklisting efforts as the dawn of "a modern McCarthy era" with Americans "facing exactly the type of heavy-handed government censorship our Constitution rightfully forbids."
Noting that former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) "was ultimately disgraced and neutralized once Americans mobilized and stood up to him,” Romero said that "we must do the same today because, together, our voices are louder and, together, we will fight to be heard.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular