EESC champions pro-worker AI in high-level debate

With artificial intelligence reshaping the workplace, it is crucial to continue promoting human-centric AI and advocating for policies that balance strong AI development in Europe with social justice and workers’ rights, a high-level debate at the EESC heard.

At its January plenary session, the EESC held a debate on the deployment of artificial Intelligence in the workplace, with statements by EESC President Oliver Röpke, European Commission Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu, Deputy Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy of Poland Katarzyna Nowakowska and ILO senior economist Janine Berg. The EESC opinion on Pro-Worker AI was also presented during the debate.

In his introductory remarks, Mr Röpke stated that ‘artificial intelligence is one of the most transformative trends of our time, offering immense potential while presenting critical challenges. Today’s debate reaffirmed the importance of anchoring AI policy in the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights.’

He added that fairness, inclusion and social cohesion must be at the heart of this digital transformation, and that the EESC remains steadfast in promoting human-centric AI and advocating for policies that balance innovation with social justice and workers’ rights. ‘Through collaboration with the European Commission, the ILO and other partners, we aim to ensure AI serves the common good and builds a future that is equitable, ethical and inclusive for all,’ he said.

Ms Mînzatu highlighted that ‘when we think about AI, in particular in the workplace, we should look into ways to boost our investment in research and innovation, and how to simplify the ways in which European companies can develop in this area so that we have our own technologies trained according to European data and based on European values. Abiding by our values on social rights and equality, we ensure that European workers have the same rights in a world with or without AI – that they are protected and that human-centric control is implemented.’

Ms Nowakowska stated that artificial intelligence in the world of work offers tremendous opportunities to increase productivity and competitiveness for businesses, but also raises a number of questions about its potential impact on jobs and employment, worker health and safety, working conditions, overall job quality and the role of social dialogue.

EESC adopts opinion on Pro-Worker AI

The EESC adopted the own-initiative opinion Pro-Worker AI: levers for harnessing the potential and mitigating the risks of AI in connection with employment and labour market policies at its plenary session on 22 January.

In the opinion, the EESC stresses that social dialogue and worker involvement play a crucial role in preserving workers’ fundamental rights and promoting ‘trustworthy’ AI in the world of work. It adds that current rules should address the gaps in the protection of workers’ rights at work and ensure that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions.

Rapporteur Franca Salis-Madinier stated that the impact of AI on work and employment is not predetermined and that social dialogue – often lacking – is crucial in guaranteeing transparency and human control over the machine. In addition to massive training for workers and the general public, this opinion proposes adapting certain legislations to better involve workers, thus maximising the opportunities these technologies offer.

Ms Salis-Madinier stressed that the loopholes in the current legislation should be filled to facilitate social dialogue and avoid fragmenting laws in the various EU Member States. Particular attention should be paid to women, older people, less-skilled workers and people with disabilities, as they have fewer chances to work with AI and fewer opportunities for training. She further emphasised the importance of social dialogue whenever AI is deployed in the workplace, and the need to train workers to use AI to their benefit, developing necessary skills which could make technology an asset. Ms Salis-Madinier further argued that AI is not a technological issue but a human one, hence the need to fully involve social partners in its deployment.

The opinion was adopted with 142 votes in favour, 103 against and 14 abstentions.

It did not receive the backing of the EESC’s Employers’ Group, which tabled a counter-opinion. Though rejected, it received more than a quarter of votes cast and will be appended to the opinion. Employers’ Group members explained that by embracing AI responsibly and following the human-in-command principle, Europe can enhance competitiveness, drive scientific innovation, boost the green transition and improve working conditions. In their view, the EU already has the tools to embrace the AI revolution, and the existing legal framework would ensure its smooth deployment.

EESC members from the Civil Society Group insisted on the importance of avoiding workers being side-lined, losing decision-making power and facing redundancy as automation advances. They added that special attention should paid to the fact that AI may have an impact on how workers can organise themselves to protect their interests.

Expanded reactions from the debate

Ms Nowakowska stated that ‘we must ensure that the data inputs used to train AI systems, algorithms and machine learning models do not perpetuate biases or discrimination’, she added. ‘Continuous monitoring and analysis should be conducted to assess whether the use of AI systems negatively affects disadvantaged groups, and if such effects are identified, procedures should be implemented to mitigate these negative impacts.’

Ms Berg said ‘the ILO welcomes the EESC’s focus on the implications of AI in the workplace, and the emphasis the EESC has given to upholding the fundamental rights and its recognition of the important role of social dialogue in managing such a transition. The ILO has been active for years in debates on digitalisation in the workplace, and has recognised the transformative changes that it brings and the importance of managing these changes and providing evidence and data to our constituents to know how to manage these changes.’