New York Times faces union backlash over AI tools monitoring employee performance

2 Sources

Share

Unionized staff at The New York Times have filed grievances and unfair labor practices charges, alleging the company uses AI tools to monitor and evaluate employee performance without proper disclosure. The Times Tech Guild claims management violated their collective bargaining agreement by deploying DX and Glean, two internal systems that track work output and access internal documentation, raising concerns about surveillance and arbitrary performance metrics.

AI Fight Brewing Inside The New York Times

The New York Times is facing mounting pressure from its unionized workforce over the deployment of AI tools that employees claim amount to workplace surveillance. The Times Tech Guild, representing around 700 software engineers, designers, product managers, and data analysts, filed grievances alleging that management violated their collective bargaining agreement by implementing two internal systems without proper consultation

1

. Both the Tech Guild and the separate New York Times Guild, which represents more than 1,500 editorial, ad sales, and support staff, have also filed unfair labor practices charges claiming the company refused to provide information about its AI use despite being required by federal law

2

.

The union dispute centers on two specific platforms: DX, an engineering productivity tool that tracks employees' output, generative AI use, and efficiency metrics, and Glean, a knowledge management system that indexes internal documentation including wikis, GitHub documents, Google Docs, and emails. What began as company-wide measurement initiatives has evolved into personalized benchmarking, with DX data now being applied to individual employees during disciplinary situations, according to Ben Harnett, a software engineer at the Times and chair of the unit's generative AI committee

1

.

Employee Surveillance Concerns Escalate

"Now people in disciplinary situations are suddenly having read back to them, 'You only did one [pull request] per week, per whatever, and that's 25 percent below industry standard,'" Harnett told The Verge. He expressed concern that blanket metrics flatten the nuanced work that engineers perform and create an opaque system that can be weaponized against staff in performance reviews. The metrics don't correlate to quality of work or the actual number of features an employee delivers, he noted

1

. DX statistics have reportedly been cited in recent disciplinary conversations, with the Tech Guild claiming this amounts to a de facto quota system for monitoring staff.

Glean raises additional concerns about employee surveillance. While designed to help workers query internal knowledge bases more easily, the system's ability to pull vast amounts of internal documentation means managers could potentially query the tool about individual performance or contributions. The Tech Guild told The Verge that the style and format of recent disciplinary notices suggest they were generated using Glean. Harnett also noted that Glean generates falsehoods and can lead users on "wild goose chases"

1

.

Contract Negotiations and AI Protections

The controversy unfolds as contract negotiations between The New York Times and its unions intensify. The Times Guild is pushing for robust AI protections, including requirements that a human oversees any AI tool being used, that journalism utilizing AI is transparently labeled, and that staff are compensated for AI model training deals the company might make

1

. Guild members gathered last week in front of the New York Times Building in Midtown Manhattan, calling for stronger artificial intelligence protections and affordable health care

2

.

Source: New York Post

Source: New York Post

"Using AI to surveil our work violates our contract and creates a skewed, inaccurate picture of our members' work," said Benjamin Harnett. "Our work takes human judgment, problem-solving and skill that can't be accurately assessed by AI analysis and proxy metrics. It's the equivalent of setting an arbitrary story quota for journalists"

2

.

According to the unions, Times management has continually refused to provide information to the Tech Guild on the company's use of AI despite being required by federal law. The unions sent their first request for information nearly two months ago on March 26, followed by requests on April 22 and a final notice on May 6

2

. They're seeking details on current, past, planned, and contemplated use of AI and its impact on employees and workflow.

Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said the company disagrees with the characterizations made in grievances and would respond through its "normal contractual process." She added that the company will respond to the request for information "in due course as we've done with 80+ other RFIs from the Guild in recent years"

1

.

Susan DeCarava, President of NewsGuild of New York, framed the issue as part of a broader trend: "Workers everywhere are under attack from the unethical use of artificial programs by bosses. Sadly, New York Times management has proven themselves to be no different, rejecting both transparency and accountability for how artificial programs are being used against the very workers who help make the company successful"

2

. The outcome of this union dispute could set precedents for how journalism organizations and tech companies balance productivity measurement with worker privacy rights as AI adoption accelerates across industries.

Today's Top Stories

TheOutpost.ai

Don’t drown in AI news. We cut through the noise - filtering, ranking and summarizing the most important AI news, breakthroughs and research daily. Spend less time searching for the latest in AI and get straight to action.

Instagram logo
LinkedIn logo
Youtube logo
© 2026 TheOutpost.AI All rights reserved