The Animation Guild (IATSE Local 839) executive board has issued a statement defending its tentative deal with Hollywood studios after a number of committee members expressed disappointment.
The statement came on Wednesday after some committee members posted to social media their thoughts on the deal and that they plan to vote ‘No’ to ratify it. The tentative deal was originally reached with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers on Nov. 22.
“We believe this agreement is the strongest contract the Union has negotiated in the last decade with significant craft improvements, substantial wage increases and critical new protections,” the message read. “The executive board supports the agreement because Guild members as a whole stand to greatly benefit from its terms, across all crafts. As elected leaders, the executive board acts on behalf of the members we work with day to day, in hopes to secure a robust future for animation workers.”
Complaints from committee members like Mike Rianda – director of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines” – began to crop up on social media on Tuesday as the ratification process began. Rianda posted to Instagram that he felt the deal did not feature enough safeguards from artificial intelligence.
“Studios can replace workers with AI,” he wrote. “Studios can force you to use AI. Studios can give you AI work to finish on any timeline. We didn’t get staffing minimums to protect crew sizes from AI job losses… This was gutting.”
When reached by TheWrap, Rianda declined to provide further comment.
Joey Clift, a member of the Animation Guild committee’s support staff, took to Bluesky to add that the current deal didn’t provide the guardrails needed for animation workers. The summary of the guild’s memorandum of agreement (MOA) notes that producers must notify animation employees if generative AI will be used on a project and allow employees to request consultation for alternatives that do not involve the technology.
All work using GenAI will still be union-covered work and will not affect an employee’s pay or credit, but there is no language that gives animators the power to refuse to use GenAI in their work.
“I talked to a lot of TAG members about this, and people are scared,” Clift wrote. “Scared of losing their careers they’ve spent decades of their lives working towards, all so a few rich people can save a few bucks. We fought tooth and nail and received a few small AI protections in this contract, but these aren’t the strong, common sense AI guardrails we need to keep animation workers protected.”
The executive board was adamant with their defense of the tentative deal, however, stating they remain committed to providing protections for the entire guild.
Their statement echoed explanations made by the guild in an FAQ on their contract website, which detailed that TAG could not push for banning generative AI from any union production “not only because the producers would never have agreed to that, but because it would also result in the work being sent to non-union workers, without the protection or benefits of a Collective Bargaining Agreement,”
“Generative AI is a complex and deeply concerning issue for our industry, and we recognize the passion and apprehension it has sparked among our members,” the statement continued. “We are absolutely committed to protecting our industry. It’s also important to understand that union contracts alone cannot solve this challenge, as seen in the recent contracts of other entertainment unions with far larger memberships and leverage than our own. Real long-term change requires broader solutions, alongside the GenAI guardrails we have gained in this contract. Changes include those within the Union — enforcement of existing protections, lobbying through TAG’s AI Watchdog Committee, organizing studios across the U.S. — and beyond, such as robust government regulations, public support for human-made work and tax incentives that support human creativity.”
The message concluded, “This contract balances progress with leverage, addressing challenges and delivering meaningful gains that we have been working on for years during numerous contract cycles. We trust our members will see this as a significant step forward and vote ‘Yes’ to ratify the agreement.”
The debate among animators over whether the AI protections in the MOA are sufficient echo those within other IATSE locals earlier this year with regards to the Hollywood Basic and Area Standards Agreements, which handle wages and working conditions on live-action productions.
This past July, members of the Art Directors Guild (IATSE 800) told TheWrap that they opposed ratifying the bargaining agreements because they found the AI protections negotiated in the contract to be insufficient for protecting the long-term viability of their professions.
One member who was part of the ADG’s AI task force said that his group recommended contract language similar to that negotiated last year by the Writers Guild of America that prevented writers from being forced by studios to use AI in their writing or to use AI-generated material as adaptational material.
The members who spoke to TheWrap also warned that while IATSE had negotiated generous wage increases, more rigorous set safety protocols and double/triple overtime pay for shoot days that last longer than 12 hours, the number of union members able to take advantage of those benefits would decrease as studios turn to AI to reduce the number of crew workers that need to be hired in an effort to lower budgets.
With crew workers in Hollywood struggling financially due to rising costs of living and major losses in financial savings due to the 2023 writers’/actors’ strikes, both IATSE contracts were ratified with 85% of voting members in favor.
The Animation Guild’s ratification process began Tuesday and will conclude on Dec. 22.
