As Hollywood grapples with worries about the threat of artificial intelligence, the union that represents animators is facing dissent over its latest deal with major studios.

Three Animation Guild negotiations committee members said they will vote “no” on a tentative contract the guild reached with their employers, saying the AI protections they wrangled don’t go far enough.

“I believe the A.I. and outsourcing protections in this contract are not strong enough — and in my opinion — could lead to the loss of a lot of jobs,” wrote negotiations committee member Michael Rianda, who directed the animated film “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” on Instagram. “Real members lives could be hurt by not having these protections.”

The Animation Guild’s executive board disputed any notion that the deal lacks support, saying in a statement that more than 90% of the negotiations committee table team backed the tentative agreement and recommend ratification.

“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 executive board said. “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.”

The animation guild reached an agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents major studios, last month. Animation Guild members will have until the end of Dec. 22 to vote on the contract.

The guild touted several gains in the three-year deal, including increases to health and pension funds and wage increases of 7% in the first year, 4% in the second and 3.5% in the third. The pact features AI protections that include notification and consultation provisions; protections for remote work; and the recognition of Juneteenth as a holiday.

The guild represents more than 6,000 artists, technicians, writers and production workers in the animation industry.

“After weeks of negotiations that covered months in the calendar, I am very proud of the agreement that we reached with the studios for our new contract,” Steve Kaplan, business representative for the Animation Guild, said in a statement when the deal was struck. “Not only have we seen the inclusion of the advancements in the industry realized by the other Unions and Guilds, but we were able to address industry-specific issues in a meaningful way.”

Rianda said in his Instagram post that the guild did not secure staffing minimums “to protect crew sizes from AI job loss.” If the tentative contract is not passed by guild members, the union will go back to the table with AMPTP. If those talks are unsuccessful, the union could call for a strike authorization vote.

“Voting ‘No’ could give us the leverage we need to actually get substantial gains,” wrote Kelly Lynne D’Angelo, a television and musical writer, who also was on the guild’s negotiations committee, on Bluesky. “Does it mean we may lose other things negotiated? Yes. But do those things trump more needs in A.I., Outsourcing, and Staffing Minimums? That’s YOUR call to make.”

Multiple union locals representing Hollywood’s below-the-line workers have pushed for overall minimum staffing requirements but have gotten little traction. The Animation Guild’s tentative contract does include a minimum staffing provision with guaranteed employment length for animation writers. The Writers Guild of America managed to secure minimum staffing protections in TV writers rooms last year after going on strike.

Many Hollywood workers are concerned about potential job losses from artificial intelligence. Proponents of AI say that the technology could help bring costs down, give freedom to test bold ideas and speed up production.

A study released earlier this year estimated 62,000 entertainment jobs could be lost to AI within the next three years and work, including roles in 3-D modeling, character and environment design. The study was commissioned by the Animation Guild, the Concept Art Assn., the Human Artistry Campaign and the National Cartoonists Society Foundation.

Those concerns have boosted interest from workers in joining the guild, also known as IATSE Local 839. The Times reported that from December 2021 to December 2023, nearly 1,000 animation professionals from a dozen different studios were cleared to unionize under the Animation Guild, which was founded in 1952.

Committee member Joey Clift, a writer on Netflix’s “Spirit Rangers,” said that AI protections were among the top priorities for members, but the tentative contract falls short.

“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,” wrote Clift on Bluesky , adding that he plans to vote “no.”

Best for: Ultra-luxury travelers who want extra privacy

What it’s like inside: Though it doesn’t come cheap, PS is the ultimate commercial-yet-feels-private airport experience. Travelers begin their journey at a facility completely separate from the rest of the airport, with an entrance that is off Imperial Highway. Say goodbye to typical LAX traffic.

Upon arrival, guests are whisked away to one of two secluded, luxury experiences — either the “Private Suite,” a fully enclosed oasis for a group, or “The Salon,” a sophisticated shared social lounge. PS representatives then take care of every logistical element pre-flight, including monitoring for delays so that you don’t have to.

Guests enjoy an extensive menu of cocktails and meals that are included in the cost of admission, as well as spa and beauty offerings such as manicures, pedicures, haircuts and massages, for an additional fee.

For ultimate privacy, there’s a fully secluded TSA checkpoint or customs facility for international travelers on arrival. And when boarding is set to commence, guests are chauffeured in a BMW directly to the aircraft door. Yes, that’s right, travelers who use PS never have to set foot in a terminal building.

How to get in: Travelers must pay on a per-usage basis to use PS; a Private Suite at LAX costs $4,850 for up to four travelers while the Salon costs $1,095 per person. Discounts are available for those who sign up for an annual membership.

Where it’s located: A private facility located across the airfield from LAX’s main terminal area off Imperial Highway.

Kroger’s plans to buy its grocery rival Albertsons hit a major roadblock Tuesday, when a federal judge put a halt to the deal, which would be the largest supermarket merger in U.S. history.

The decision is a blow to Albertsons and Kroger, which announced plans for the $24.6-billion acquisition of its rival in 2022.

The Federal Trade Commission, California and several other states had sued to stop the deal, arguing the merger would decimate competition in many parts of the country and leave customers at the mercy of a newly formed behemoth that could drive up prices.

“This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets,” said Henry Liu, the FTC’s Bureau of Competition director, in a statement.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson in Oregon to issue a preliminary injunction in the case means the two companies cannot proceed with their merger and will have to make their case again before the Federal Trade Commission, which will conduct an in-house proceeding on the proposed deal before an administrative law judge.

“Any harms defendants experience as a result of the injunction do not overcome the strong public interest in the enforcement of antitrust law,” Nelson wrote in her 71-page decision.

Representatives of Kroger and Albertsons said they’re reviewing their options and are “disappointed” by the ruling. A spokesperson for Kroger added that the merger “is in the best interests of customers, associates, and the broader competitive environment in a rapidly evolving grocery landscape.”

The ruling comes after a three-week hearing that started in late August in a federal courtroom in Oregon and featured the grocery store chains’ executives, FTC lawyers, union leaders and antitrust experts. The high-stakes court battle centered on concerns that the mega-merger would add to the financial woes of consumers who have grappled with the rising cost of food.

The case garnered particular attention as it touched on hot-button issues of rising food prices and labor rights during a tight U.S. presidential race in which Donald Trump hammered Vice President Kamala Harris on people’s dissatisfaction with the economy.

In October, Albertsons agreed to pay nearly $4 million to settle a civil law enforcement complaint that alleged the company overcharged customers for groceries and lied about the weight of some products.

Kroger and Albertsons executives have defended their decision to merge, saying in court that joining forces would help them compete with big retailers such as Walmart, Costco and Amazon. Kroger Chief Executive Rodney McMullen told the courtroom that the grocery chains planned to lower grocery prices after the merger. The supermarket chains say they’ve kept their gross profit margins low as part of their efforts to lower prices and will reduce the disparity between the grocery prices at Kroger and Albertsons.

The judge, though, said in her ruling that courts should be skeptical of promises that can’t be enforced, noting that “business realities” might force the grocery chains to alter whether they follow through on their vows to lower prices.

The federal government also made the case that supermarkets are different than other retailers because people go to these stores to buy groceries in a single visit. Costco, for example, requires membership, has bulk packages and lacks services offered in grocery chains like Kroger and Albertsons.

“It is not surprising that consumers spend money at a variety of different types of retailers, but this does not necessarily show that those retailers are reasonably interchangeable substitutes for a consumer’s particular needs,” the judge wrote.

To address concerns that reduced competition would lead to higher grocery store prices, Kroger and Albertsons have proposed selling 579 stores to another company, C&S Wholesale Grocers. That includes 63 stores in California, mainly in Southern California. After hearing testimony from experts, however, the judge wasn’t swayed.

U.S. regulators argued that the merger would hurt consumers. In its lawsuit filed in February, the FTC alleged that a lack of competition would lead to higher grocery prices, reduce food quality and customer service and harm grocery workers who are pushing for better working conditions and wages. Because Kroger and Albertsons are rivals, they compete with one another for workers and will price-match competitors.

Nelson said it was “plausible” that the merger would reduce competition for union grocery store labor, but noted there’s “no economic modeling of how wages, benefits, and other compensation might change as a result of changes in bargaining power.”

Acquisitions have fueled Kroger’s and Albertsons’ growth. Albertsons owns the well-known brands Pavilions, Safeway and Vons. Kroger operates Ralphs, Food4Less, Fred Meyer, Fry’s, Quality Food Centers and other popular grocery stores. If the merger ultimately goes through, the two supermarket chains would operate more than 5,000 stores in 48 states, the FTC said in the lawsuit.

The competition among grocery stores has been intensifying. Nationwide, Walmart is the most popular retailer, according to consumer data company Numerator. On the West Coast, Costco is the most popular retailer, followed by Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger, Amazon and Target.

Whether shoppers would see their grocery prices rise or fall was a complicated question for the court because a variety of forces can affect food prices. Those factors include competition, the costs of ingredients, worker wages, management efficiency and disease outbreaks.

Some experts say the effect the merger would have on grocery prices could depend on where a shopper lives. Some grocery mergers in major cities with a lot of competition such as San Francisco and New York have led to lower prices. In cities with less competition such as Topeka, Kan., grocery store mergers have resulted in higher prices. Economists have also found that sometimes a merger results in relatively little change in prices.

Siding with economic analysis provided by the federal government’s expert, Nelson noted the proposed merger is “presumptively unlawful.”

“Plaintiff’s analysis is persuasive and shows that the loss of head-to-head competition will incentivize price increases in many markets,” she wrote.