agreement

JOHANNESBURG — The U.S. government has signed health deals with at least nine African countries, part of its new approach to global health funding, with agreements that reflect the Trump administration’s interests and priorities and are geared toward providing less aid and more mutual benefits.

The agreements signed so far, with Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda among others, are the first under the new global health framework, which makes aid dependent on negotiations between the recipient country and the U.S.

Some of the countries that have signed deals either have been hit by U.S. aid cuts or have separate agreements with the Trump administration to accept and host third-country deportees, although officials have denied any linkage.

The Trump administration says the new “America First” global health funding agreements are meant to increase self-sufficiency and eliminate what it says are ideology and waste from international assistance. The deals replace a patchwork of previous health agreements under the now-dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development.

U.S. aid cuts have crippled health systems across the developing world, including in Africa, where many countries relied on the funding for crucial programs, including those responding to outbreaks of disease.

The new approach to global health aligns with President Trump’s pattern of dealing with other nations transactionally, using direct talks with foreign governments to promote his agenda abroad. It builds on his sharp turn from traditional U.S. foreign assistance, which supporters say furthered American interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.

A different strategy

The deals mark a sharp departure from how the U.S. has provided healthcare funding over the years and mirrors the Trump administration’s interests.

South Africa, which has lost most of its U.S. funding — including $400 million in annual support — due in part to its disputes with the U.S., has not signed a health deal, despite having one of the world’s highest HIV prevalence rates.

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, reached a deal but with an emphasis on Christian-based health facilities, although it has a slight majority Muslim population. Rwanda and Uganda, which each have deportation deals with the U.S., have announced health pacts.

Cameroon, Eswatini, Lesotho, Liberia and Mozambique also are among those that have signed health deals with the U.S.

According to the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, the deals “combine U.S. funding reductions, ambitious co-financing expectations, and a shift toward direct government-to-government assistance.”

The deals represent a reduction in total U.S. health spending for each country, the center said, with annual U.S. financial support down 49% compared with 2024.

A faith-based deal in Nigeria, a lifeline for several others

Under its deal, Nigeria, a major beneficiary of USAID funds, would get support that has a “strong emphasis” on Christian faith-based healthcare providers.

The U.S. provided approximately $2.3 billion in health assistance to Nigeria between 2021 and 2025, mostly through USAID, official data shows. The new five-year agreement will see U.S. support at over $2 billion, while Nigeria is expected to raise $2.9 billion to boost its healthcare programs.

The agreement “was negotiated in connection with reforms the Nigerian government has made to prioritize protecting Christian populations from violence and includes significant dedicated funding to support Christian healthcare facilities,” the State Department said in a statement.

The department said “the president and secretary of State retain the right to pause or terminate any programs which do not align with the national interest,” urging Nigeria to ensure “that it combats extremist religious violence against vulnerable Christian populations.”

For several other countries, the new deals could be a lifeline after U.S. aid cuts crippled their healthcare systems and left them racing to fill the gaps.

Under its deal, Mozambique will get U.S. support of over $1.8 billion for HIV and malaria programs. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in the world, clinched a deal worth over $232 million.

In the tiny kingdom of Eswatini, the U.S. committed to provide up to $205 million to support public health data systems, disease surveillance and outbreak response, while the country agreed to increase domestic health expenditures by $37 million.

No deal for South Africa after disputes

South Africa is noticeably absent from the list of signatories following tensions with the Trump administration.

Trump has said he will cut all financial assistance to South Africa over his widely rejected claims that it is violently persecuting its Afrikaner white minority.

The dismantling of USAID resulted in the loss of over $436 million in yearly financing for HIV treatment and prevention in South Africa, putting the program and thousands of jobs in the healthcare industry at risk.

Health compacts with countries that signed deportation deals

At least four of the countries that have reached deals previously agreed to receive third-country deportees from the U.S., a controversial immigration policy that has been a trademark of the Trump administration.

The State Department has denied any linkage between the healthcare compacts and agreements regarding accepting third-country asylum seekers or third-country deportees from the United States. However, officials have said that political considerations unrelated to health issues may be part of the negotiations.

Rwanda, one of the countries with a deportation deal with the U.S., signed a $228-million health pact requiring the U.S. to support it with $158 million.

Uganda, another such country, signed a health deal worth nearly $2.3 billion in which the U.S. will provide up to $1.7 billion. Eswatini also has started receiving flights with deported prisoners from the United States.

Magome and Gumede write for the Associated Press. AP writers Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya; Dyepkazah Shibayan in Abuja, Nigeria; Mark Banchereau in Dakar, Senegal; and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”

TikTok has finalized a deal with Oracle and two other investors that will allow the popular social video platform to continue its business in U.S.

The deal, expected to close on Jan. 22, will be 50% held by a new investor consortium that includes tech giant Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX, a technology fund in the United Arab Emirates (with each holding 15%). The rest of the group is made up of ByteDance owning 19.19% and affiliates of existing ByteDance investors holding 30.1%, TikTok said in a memo to employees.

“With these agreements in place, our focus must stay where it’s always been — firmly on delivering for our users, creators, businesses and the global TikTok community,” TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew wrote in his memo.

The company’s future for many years in the U.S. had been uncertain, amid security concerns among legislators about ByteDance’s ties to China. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance had been under pressure to divest its ownership in the app’s U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban, due to a law Congress passed that went into effect in January. President Trump has signed orders that have allowed TikTok to keep operating in the country and in September signed an executive order outlining the new joint venture.

The venture, which would oversee U.S. data protection, algorithm security, content moderation and software assurance, would be governed by a seven-member board that is majority American, Chew said in his memo. Oracle will be the security partner responsible for “auditing and validating compliance with the agreed upon National Security Terms,” Chew wrote.

Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison is also a party in effort to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

Oracle did not return a request for comment. Silver Lake declined to comment. The White House on Thursday referred questions about the deal back to TikTok. In September, Trump said that Chinese President Xi Jinping had approved the deal.

“These safeguards would protect the American people from the misuse of their data and the influence of a foreign adversary, while also allowing the millions of American viewers, creators, and businesses that rely on the TikTok application to continue using it,” Trump stated in his executive order.

The announcement will come as a relief to some creators and businesses who rely on TikTok to entertain and reach fans and customers.

“I hope it just stays true to the platform and the independence we get from it,” said Yasmine Sahide, who posts comedy videos on TikTok and has 2.4 million followers. “I hope we’re still able to monetize our videos the same way because without that, I think a lot of people would leave or feel uninspired.”

Keith Lee, a TikTok creator who posts videos about food, said he expects the algorithm to change.”I just hope that we can still stay connected with our community and reach an audience the same way as before,” said Lee, who has 17.3 million followers.

Many TikTok creators are based in Southern California, close to TikTok’s office in Culver City. Over the years when TikTok’s future appeared uncertain, some of those creators diversified, posting their content to other platforms like YouTube and Instagram.

“It’s a smart way to avoid ownership and data issues,” said Ray Wang, principal analyst at Constellation Research, of the deal.

If finalized, the deal would remove a persistent issue in Beijing-Washington relations and signal progress in broader talks. But it would also deprive China’s most valuable private company of total control of an American social media phenomenon.

ByteDance’s coveted algorithms are considered central to TikTok’s business. Under the the deal proposed by Washington, ByteDance will license its AI recommendation technology to a newly created U.S. TikTok entity, which will use the existing algorithm to retrain a new system that is secured by Oracle, according to Bloomberg. The algorithm will be retrained on U.S. user data by the U.S. joint venture, according to TikTok.

Some industry observers questioned whether the deal addresses the larger concerns surrounding TikTok in the law Congress passed.

“While these executive orders positively have allowed the platform to operate and maintain the venue for speech, they do not resolve the underlying concerns about the law, which could be applied to other platforms in the future and raise questions about executive power,” said Cato Institute senior fellow in tech policy Jennifer Huddleston in a statement.

“Just because TikTok remains available under such orders does not mean that the policy concerns about the underlying law have been resolved.”

Bloomberg contributed to this report.

Dec. 18 (UPI) — Peru signed a strategic agreement with South Korean defense firm Hyundai Rotem for the future acquisition of tanks and armored vehicles — a deal that, if finalized, could become South Korea’s largest land-defense export to a Latin American country.

The agreement involves the sale of 54 K2 main battle tanks and 141 K808 armored personnel carriers, with an expected value that exceeds $1.4 billion, RPP Noticias reported. It would mark the first sale of this type of South Korean military equipment in the region.

Peru’s Ministry of Defense said in a statement that the agreement also includes technological cooperation, financing options and the promotion of industrial projects linked to the defense sector, in line with the country’s plans to modernize and strengthen its military capabilities.

Peruvian lawmaker and former admiral Jorge Montoya told UPI that military cooperation between the two countries began about a decade ago through contacts between Peruvian shipyards and Hyundai.

“For the past 40 years, Peru has acquired weapons from Germany. However, after a series of economic and technological assessments, the decision was made to change suppliers to Hyundai,” Montoya said. “A cooperation agreement has also been signed with them for the development of submarine units.”

Montoya said the goal of the agreement is to ensure a defense capability suited to the country’s realities.

“We are not seeking to compete with any country in the region, because other countries spend twice as much on defense as we do,” he said. “Peru allocates the smallest share of GDP to defense, just 0.8%. All countries are ahead of us, including Bolivia.”

He added that Peru’s extensive borders require modern capabilities for the armed forces.

The framework agreement sets the stage for deliveries beginning in 2026, with the possibility of local assembly starting in 2029. The plan includes joint industrial projects involving Peru’s Army Weapons and Ammunition Factory and Hyundai Rotem.

Maj. Gen. Jorge Arevalo, commander of the Army’s Logistics Command and a board member of the state-owned arms manufacturer, recently confirmed that South Korean partners are planning an initial $270 million investment to build an industrial complex in Peru where K2 tanks and armored vehicles would be assembled, Peru 21 reported.

Peru’s Prime Minister Ernesto Alvarez said the Army is recovering lost capacity to transport troops in armored vehicles, a process that also involves acquiring front-line tanks to replace Soviet-era T-55 models that he said no longer have deterrent capability.

Alvarez also confirmed that Peru this week received a second batch of three UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters donated by the United States under an agreement signed in October last year for a total of nine aircraft.

A large group of Dodgers fans enthusiastically answered the call during an August home game against the Arizona Diamondbacks. It was the team’s eighth annual Union Night celebration, and while cheering for the Dodgers, fans also chanted for their local.

“Who are we?” a leather-lunged fan shouted.

“Teamsters!” came the reply.

The Dodgers’ marketing strategy aimed at blue-collar fans of the boys in blue isn’t hypocritical. The franchise reached two landmark Collective Bargaining Agreements in 2023 with the Service Employees International Union United Service Workers West (SEIU-USWW).

Although raises to the 450 employees that included ushers, security officers and groundskeepers were recognized as long overdue and took organized protests and the threat of a strike for the Dodgers to agree to a contract, the result was a decisive victory for union solidarity.

More recently the franchise hasn’t stood in the way of another segment of employees attempting to unionize. It has hammered out an agreement with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) representing the 55 or so Dodger Stadium tour guides — mostly part-timers whose knowledge of Dodgers history and love of the team is unsurpassed.

Yet ratifying the agreement has proven difficult because roughly half of the guides don’t want to unionize. A vote in October failed to pass by a 25-24 margin with six guides abstaining. Repeated emails by The Times to several tour guides who voted against unionizing were not answered, and the Dodgers declined to comment for this story.

The guides supporting the agreement have launched a re-vote for Dec. 15-17, and both sides have spent recent weeks busily lobbying guides perceived as uncommitted. The divide has impacted morale, tour guides say, at a time when Dodger Stadium tours have never been more popular, described by the Dodgers during union negotiations as a “robust money-making operation.”

“The demand has risen tremendously the last two years,” tour guide Cary Ginell said. “It’s been great for the Dodgers. When I joined in March 2022, the cost of a tour was $25. Now no tour is less than $42.50. The team is raking in the money and none of it goes to us.”

Even if the union agreement is approved, however, the battle won’t be over because guides opposing the union have already filed a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board to keep IATSE from representing the tour guides.

Although both sides accuse the other of underhanded tactics in swaying voters, the key issue dividing the group is fairly straightforward.

The new agreement would increase wages by 25% from $17.87 to $24 an hour — roughly the same rate the 2023 agreement did for the SEIU-USWW members — with additional $1 an hour increases in the second and third years of the contract.

Security measures at stadium entry points also would be improved. Tour guides have complained that fans who show up for tours are able to walk into the stadium top deck without passing through security, sometimes even while carrying backpacks.

That lapse would end, according to a draft of the CBA obtained by The Times: “The Employer shall provide and properly staff security checkpoints that include a metal detector and bag search at all designated points of entry for patrons entering Dodger Stadium for purposes of participating in stadium tours.”

Unionizing, however, might end the Dodgers’ longtime practice of giving tour guides four reserve-level tickets for each of the 13 homestands in a season, a perk worth an estimated $2,600 assuming the tickets are valued at $50 each. The prospect of that is a deal-breaker for many of the guides.

Tour guides present during negotiations said the Dodgers refused to mention free tickets in the union contract because they said other part-time union employees then would demand the same perk. The Dodgers made it clear they weren’t necessarily ending the perk, just that the issue couldn’t be addressed in the agreement.

The monetary value of the tickets is greater than the raise for tour guides that work close to the minimum number of 60 four-hour shifts per year. However, the average tour guide works about 125 shifts — 500 hours — a year, and they would be taking home more pay in raises than the tickets are worth.

Some less-experienced tour guides have felt pressure from anti-union veteran guides. Semaj Perry said that during his training in March, an older, respected guide convinced him to sign a decertification petition. Perry has since attended a negotiation session and read the agreement between the Dodgers and the union.

“It’s more of a status thing than a financial decision for some of the older tour guides,” Perry said. “For some of them, this is fun to do during retirement. I took the job because I needed to pay rent. I’m voting yes to join the union.”

Dodger Stadium tours have become increasingly popular — generating more than $1 million a year in revenue — because of recent stadium renovations, two consecutive World Series championships and the signings of Japanese stars Shohei Ohtani, Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Roki Sasaki.

“The tour program has grown so much in the age of Ohtani,” said Ray Lokar, a veteran Dodgers tour guide whose full-time career was a high school coach and athletic director for nearly 40 years. “The visibility and security responsibilities have been amplified. It’s grown from a mom‐and‐pop operation of a dozen people showing folks around the stadium to a multi-million dollar asset.”

The stadium tours now fall under the management umbrella of a recently implemented revenue-producing initiative called Dodgers 365, which offers year-round rentals of everything from $50,000 for the field to $15,000 for the Centerfield Plaza to $12,500 for the Stadium Club. In September, the LA Card Show made its Dodger Stadium debut, drawing thousands of fans swapping and bartering trading cards.

While recognizing that possibly giving up free tickets is a stumbling block, several veteran tour guides who advocate joining the union are perplexed that so many of their colleagues are suspicious of organized labor. About all they agree on is that they love the Dodgers.

“The tour team amplifies the most valuable asset the Dodgers have: their brand, the 135 years of history, from the borough of Brooklyn to Dodger Stadium,” Ginell, author of 14 books on American music, said. “It’s a different function than any other employee. We make fans happy conveying that history, and it’s that history that got the Dodgers their $2 billion price tag.”

Lokar emphasized fairness as a reason tour guides should vote to approve union representation.

“We should be protected, respected and connected,” he said. “We wanted to feel safe physically and emotionally, be paid fairly, and not treated as second-class citizens.”

The document is named after the Place de la Concorde in Paris, where the first such agreement was finalised in 1981 after a period of conflict between the FIA and the teams, then led by Bernie Ecclestone, external.

The new deal has taken most of this year to finalise, after the teams reached their own commercial agreements with F1 in March.

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who was appointed to a new four-year term on Friday following an election in which he was unopposed, has been consistent in the past four years in trying to secure more money for the FIA from F1.

The FIA depends to a large part on F1 for its income and paid in the region of $40m (£30m) annually in the last Concorde Agreement.

F1 president and chief executive officer Stefano Domenicali said: “This agreement ensures F1 is in the best possible position to continue to grow around the world.”

Ben Sulayem added: “This agreement allows us to continue modernising our regulatory, technological, and operational capabilities, including supporting our race directors, officials, and the thousands of volunteers whose expertise underpin every race.

“We are ensuring F1 remains at the forefront of technological innovation, setting new standards in global sport.”

The Concorde Agreement spans the planned length of the new regulation set which is being introduced into F1 in 2026.

This will feature new regulations for both cars and engines, and includes the introduction of fully sustainable fuels.

The new cars will be slightly smaller and lighter, while the engines will have a near 50-50 split between internal combustion and electrical power.