The New York Times, a flagship of American journalism, is facing an internal conflict over the use of artificial intelligence tools to monitor and evaluate its own tech employees. Unionized staff with the NewsGuild's Tech Guild, representing around 700 software engineers, designers, product managers, and data analysts, have accused management of violating their collective bargaining agreement by deploying two AI systems: DX and Glean. These tools, initially presented as productivity aids, are now being used to track individual performance data, which the union argues constitutes workplace surveillance.

The heart of the dispute lies in how the Times has implemented DX, a tool that measures engineering productivity by tracking outputs such as code commits, pull requests, and even generative AI usage. According to Ben Harnett, a software engineer at the Times and chair of the union's generative AI committee, the tool was originally described as a way to measure overall company efficiency. However, over recent months, DX has begun generating personalized benchmarks that are being cited in disciplinary reviews. Employees are being told, for instance, that their pull request frequency is 25 percent below industry standards, a metric that Harnett says flattens complex engineering work into a dehumanizing number.

Background: AI in Newsrooms

The conflict at the Times is part of a broader tension within the media industry over the role of artificial intelligence. Over the past few years, news organizations have increasingly adopted AI for tasks ranging from automated content generation to data analysis. The Times itself has used AI to parse millions of documents in investigative projects, such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, and to scan satellite images to identify bomb impacts in Gaza. However, the use of AI for workplace monitoring is a more recent and contentious frontier.

Unions across the country are now bargaining for clear rules on how AI can be used. In April 2026, 150 unionized employees at ProPublica walked off the job for 24 hours, with AI use being a key sticking point. At McClatchy, the publisher of newspapers like the Miami Herald and The Sacramento Bee, staff withheld bylines when the company began using a generative AI tool to rewrite stories. These actions reflect a growing demand for transparency and worker involvement in AI deployment.

DX and Glean: The Tools at Issue

DX, an engineering analytics platform, aggregates data from development tools to provide metrics on productivity, code quality, and team efficiency. While such tools are common in the tech industry, the Times' use of DX to generate individualized performance benchmarks has alarmed employees. The union's grievance states that the tool's data is being used to discipline staff based on arbitrary metrics that do not capture the quality or complexity of their work.

Glean, an enterprise AI search tool, indexes internal documents, wikis, emails, and code repositories to help employees find information quickly. However, the union fears that Glean can also be used to monitor individual contributions. For example, a manager could query the system for a specific employee's activity across internal documents. The Tech Guild alleges that recent disciplinary notices appeared to be generated using Glean, though the company has not confirmed this.

Harnett expressed concern that these tools create a surveillance environment: "The way that they're using [DX and Glean] we feel really amounts to deploying surveillance and monitoring tech against the workers." He added that the metrics do not correlate to actual job performance—an employee might make fewer pull requests because they are handling complex architectural changes, not because they are slacking.

Unfair Labor Practice Charges

Both the Tech Guild and the Times Guild (which represents 1,500 editorial, ad sales, and support staff) have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the Times has refused to bargain over AI use and has not provided requested information. The unions argue that the company is legally obligated to negotiate changes that affect working conditions, including the introduction of monitoring technologies.

In response to these charges, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in an email that the company disagrees with the characterizations and will respond as part of its "normal contractual process." She noted that the Times has responded to over 80 information requests from the union in recent years.

Implications for the Future

The clash at the Times highlights the daunting challenges of integrating AI into the workplace while respecting worker rights. As AI tools become more sophisticated, the line between productivity enhancement and employee surveillance becomes blurred. For tech workers, the ability to control how their own performance is measured is critical. The union is not opposed to AI per se, but insists that workers must have a voice in how it is used.

Harnett emphasized that the current system creates perverse incentives: "It's going to distract [you] from actually doing a good job, which is what we think the company should want." Instead of fostering innovation, he argues, the metrics push employees toward activities that score well, regardless of their actual value to the organization.

The Times Guild is currently bargaining a new contract that includes robust AI protections: requirements that a human be behind any AI tool used in editorial processes, clear labeling of AI-generated journalism, and compensation for any AI training deals the company makes. These demands reflect a broader industry trend toward codifying ethical AI use.

As the negotiations continue, the outcome will likely set a precedent not only for the Times but for other news organizations. The fight inside the Times is a microcosm of the larger debate about the role of AI in the workplace—a debate that is only just beginning.

Source: The Verge News