{"resourceId":"uw-ihme-seiu-925-genai-bargaining-proposals-20261105","versions":[{"version":"external-75a7da59e3ed5a6d34e54d1bb12ca2f09499028be70e8fde6f9ea46f102597d9","resource":{"id":"uw-ihme-seiu-925-genai-bargaining-proposals-20261105","title":"UW's IHME and SEIU 925 open bargaining with proposals that employers not rely on generative AI for employment decisions, disclose its use, and not mandate it","organization":"University of Washington Human Resources, Labor Relations","sector":"Higher education HR and labor relations","geography":"United States (Washington)","publishedAt":"Updated 9 November 2026 (recap of 27 October and 5 November sessions)","publicationDate":"2026-11-09","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"UW Labor Relations","sourceLabel":"University HR bargaining recap","sourceUrl":"https://hr.uw.edu/labor/2026/11/05/uw-ihme-seiu-925-negotiations-recap-for-october-27-and-november-5-2026","evidenceClass":"public-sector-association","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["accessibility-workforce","governance-procurement"],"finding":"UW Labor Relations' recap of the first two IHME and SEIU 925 sessions lists 'AI impact on working conditions' among union priorities. Union proposals: a performance-evaluation article saying employees' use or non-use of AI shall not be used as a metric; a new generative AI article under which the employer would not rely on GenAI for employment-related decisions, would disclose the nature and extent of GenAI use, would give employees an opt-out for religious or ethical reasons without discipline, and may encourage but not mandate use. The employer's initial proposals were housekeeping edits to unrelated articles. The next session is 18 November 2026.","sledRelevance":"Gives campus HR and administration leaders a concrete, current example of staff-side terms for AI in workplace administration: disclosure, no AI-use metrics, opt-out and no mandates. It is a bargaining position, not an agreement.","evidence":"Union proposals recorded in the employer's own recap; nothing agreed. The recap does not state the employer's position on the AI articles. Covers one unit in one research institute.","architectureImplications":"No technical content; implies AI features embedded in staff workflows would need to support disclosure of use and non-mandatory adoption.","governanceImplications":"Proposed obligations: disclosure of GenAI nature and extent, no reliance on GenAI for employment decisions, and no AI-use performance metrics. These would require HR to inventory where AI touches employment processes.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Proposal references protection against rogue GenAI but gives no definition; data handling terms are not described.","caveats":"Proposals only; nothing is agreed and the employer has not responded on these articles in the recap. Single bargaining unit (research institute staff), so transferability to other campus units is limited. Different from the Melbourne agreement already archived because it is an open negotiation.","streamIds":["campus-operations"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: an open bargaining position shows what staff representatives want from workplace AI: disclosure, no use metrics, opt-out and no mandates. Interpretation: HR and IT leaders may value help inventorying where AI touches employment processes before terms are settled. Nothing here is agreed, and the recap does not state the employer's stance, so avoid predicting outcomes.","engineering":"Engineering framing: these proposals, if adopted, translate into requirements: logging that discloses where and how AI is used, no hidden AI scoring in HR systems, and configuration that does not make use compulsory or measured. Validate with HR which systems embed AI features and whether usage telemetry feeds evaluations. The source is a recap, so the final terms may differ.","delivery":"Delivery framing: governance owner is HR labor relations with IT. Delivery work is an inventory of AI features in employment-related workflows, a disclosure notice, and a rule against using AI-usage telemetry in evaluations pending bargaining. Monitor the 18 November session. Acceptance criteria should be proposed locally, because no agreement exists yet."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Administrators lack a map of where AI touches employment processes ahead of bargaining demands.","stakeholders":["Chief HR officer","Labor relations director","CIO","General counsel"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which HR and workplace systems have AI features enabled?","Is AI usage telemetry visible to managers?","Which bargaining units have raised AI proposals?"],"valueHypothesis":"An inventory and disclosure approach may reduce surprise at the table; no outcome is evidenced.","potentialEngagement":"A short inventory of AI in employment-related workflows with a draft disclosure approach.","unsupportedClaims":["Final bargaining outcome","Employer position","Applicability to other states or units"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Campuses whose HR, finance or productivity suites embed AI features visible to managers.","architectureIntegration":"Configuration review of AI features and usage telemetry in HR and productivity systems.","prerequisites":["System inventory","Telemetry access list","HR policy owner"],"constraints":["Proposals not agreed","Single unit","No technical detail in source"],"security":"Confirm AI usage logs are not repurposed for evaluation and that access to them is restricted.","proofOfValue":["Inventory completeness","Disclosure notice coverage","Telemetry access audit"]},"delivery":{"work":"Inventory AI in employment workflows, draft disclosure notices and restrict use of AI telemetry in evaluations.","dependencies":["HR system owners","Labor relations","Legal review"],"ownership":"HR labor relations with CIO support.","skillsAdoption":"Brief managers on what may not be used as a metric.","governanceCheckpoints":["Pre-bargaining inventory review","Post-agreement implementation check"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: inventory covers all HR systems","Proposed: disclosure notice issued","Proposed: no AI telemetry in evaluation templates"],"risks":["Terms change at the table","Inventory misses embedded features","Mandating use contradicts agreed terms"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T21:49:25-06:00","enrichedAt":"2026-11-09T21:49:25-06:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Directly about workforce terms: opt-out rights, no mandates, AI use not an evaluation metric.","procurementImplications":"Contract terms could constrain how HR and managers buy or mandate AI tools for staff.","operatingModelImplications":"Campuses that measure staff AI usage or require adoption should expect these to become bargaining topics.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://hr.uw.edu/labor/2026/11/05/uw-ihme-seiu-925-negotiations-recap-for-october-27-and-november-5-2026","referenceExcerpt":"The Union proposed that the Employer may encourage but not mandate GenAI use.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}