Who Gets a Say When AI Runs the Workplace? ILO Puts Workers' Rights Under the Spotlight | Technology

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming part of many workplaces. It can help companies choose who to hire, watch what employees do, and judge how well they work. But the rules for using AI may miss an important question: who gets to help decide how these systems are used? New research from the International Labour Organization (ILO) says that making AI fair and easy to understand is not enough. Workers also need rights as a group, people who can speak for them, and chances to discuss decisions with employers and governments.

The ILO research paper, AI Ethics and the ILO's international labour standards system: exploring synergies, was written by Jordi Agustí-Panareda and Daniel Samaan. It looks at how common ideas about using AI responsibly connect with international rules that protect workers. The researchers suggest that existing worker protections can help answer new questions that come up when computer systems are used to make decisions about jobs.

The study points out an important problem with current discussions about AI rules. These discussions often focus on whether computer programs are fair, easy to understand, and respectful of people's freedom to make choices. But workplace technology is used in relationships where employers and workers have different responsibilities, rights, and levels of power. If we judge AI without looking at these relationships, many important questions remain unanswered.

Workers Are Missing From the AI Ethics Discussion

The researchers compare five main ideas: justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and explicability. In simple terms, these mean treating people fairly, doing good, avoiding harm, allowing people to make their own choices, and being able to explain how technology works. These ideas have a lot in common with international worker protection rules. Both aim to respect people's dignity, support their well-being, and protect them from unfair treatment.

The main difference appears when we look at workers as a group instead of only as individuals. Common AI ethics rules often focus on protecting each person affected by an automatic decision. International labour standards go further. They also protect workers' freedom to join together, negotiate working conditions as a group, and take part in discussions with employers and governments. These rights raise another question: who gets to help make decisions about technology at work?

For example, a company might clearly explain how its AI system works but never ask workers for their opinions before introducing it. In another case, a system that judges employee performance might be designed to treat everyone fairly, but workers' representatives might have no say in how it is used. The ILO researchers say that these questions about worker participation are an important part of using technology responsibly.

This difference is about more than the words used to describe ethical behavior. Individual rights focus on how a system treats one person. Group rights focus on how workers can help shape their working conditions. Looking at both means asking not only whether an AI system behaves fairly, but also who makes the rules for using it.

For employers, this means that using AI responsibly involves more than checking whether the technology works fairly. For workers, it means that their existing rights matter when new computer systems are introduced. The paper does not say that AI ethics rules and labour standards should replace each other. Instead, it argues that they can work together as technology changes.

AI Makes Fair Decisions at Work More Complicated

Hiring and employee performance reviews show why broad promises about fairness need clearer rules. When AI helps decide who gets a job or how well an employee is doing, several questions come up. What information does the system use? How does it reach its decision? Who is responsible if something goes wrong? Being able to understand the system is closely connected to making sure job decisions are fair.

The researchers also point to employee monitoring, collecting personal information, and using computer programs to manage workers as areas that need more attention. It is not enough to say that these technologies are useful or help companies work faster. Companies must also consider whether using them respects workers' rights and dignity.

There is an important difference between explaining how a computer makes a decision and making sure the whole decision process follows worker protection rules. Knowing why an AI system gave someone a certain score can be helpful. But being responsible also means checking whether the company's wider process is fair and follows the labour rules that apply.

Personal information creates another concern. AI systems at work may collect and use information about employees. This raises questions about privacy, people's freedom to make choices, and how workplaces are managed. The paper discusses these risks, but it does not claim that every use of AI at work breaks workers' rights.

Governments, employers, and workers therefore face a bigger challenge than simply finding possible problems with AI. They must also decide how existing worker protections apply when complicated computer systems help make decisions. AI ethics can help identify problems involving fairness, privacy, clear explanations, and possible harm. Labour standards can help people examine what those problems mean for workers and their rights.

This connection can also work in the other direction. New questions about responsible AI use can help people think about how international labour standards should be understood and used as technology changes. In other words, AI ethics and labour standards can help improve each other, rather than one simply becoming part of the other.

Moving From General AI Promises to Real Worker Protections

The ILO study points out a major weakness in relying only on broad guidelines about using AI responsibly. Agreeing that fairness and clear explanations are important does not automatically tell companies how to put those ideas into practice. These promises need to be explained in more detail when AI is used to choose job applicants, monitor employees, or help managers make decisions.

International labour standards bring existing rules and rights into these discussions. They do not provide a ready-made technical answer for every AI system. Instead, they offer a way to check whether workplace technology respects expectations about working conditions, workers having a voice, and fairness in society.

The way the ILO is organized also matters. It brings together three groups: governments, employers, and workers. This gives all three groups a way to discuss AI through what is called social dialogue. It means that responsibility for using AI fairly should not belong only to the people who build or introduce the technology.

However, finding shared ideas between AI ethics and labour standards does not prove that existing worker protections can solve every new problem. Important questions remain. How can clear explanations of AI decisions lead to real responsibility in hiring and other workplace processes? How should workers' group rights apply when computer systems manage employees? And how can concerns about new technology become part of existing labour rules?

The researchers say more study and discussion are needed to understand these connections. Their work points to areas where existing worker rights and newer ideas about responsible AI could be used together to deal with changes in workplace technology.

One of the biggest questions is who has the power to decide how AI is used at work and who can question those decisions. AI ethics rules can help check whether a computer system is fair. International labour standards add another important question: do the workers affected by the system get a say? Future discussions about AI rules will need to consider both questions.

Artificial intelligence may change how companies make decisions about employees. But even very advanced technology cannot, by itself, answer questions about who is responsible for those decisions. The ILO research brings workers' group rights into a discussion that often focuses mainly on protecting individuals. It suggests that using AI responsibly means paying attention both to the technology making decisions and to the relationships between employers and workers affected by those decisions.