Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI IT

America's Labor Unions are Backing State Regulations for AI Use in Workplaces (msn.com) 95

Posted by EditorDavid from the getting-organized dept.
"As employers and tech companies rush to deploy AI software into workplaces to improve efficiency, labor unions are stepping up work with state lawmakers across the nation to place guardrails on its use..." reports the Washington Post.

"Union leaders say they must intervene to protect workers from the potential for AI to cause massive job displacement or infringe on employment rights." In Massachusetts, the Teamsters labor union is backing a proposed state law that would require autonomous vehicles to have a human safety operator who can intervene during the ride, effectively forbidding truly driverless rides. Oregon lawmakers recently passed a bill supported by the Oregon Nurses Association that prohibits AI from using the title "nurse" or any associated abbreviations. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, a federation of 63 national and international labor unions, launched a national task force last month to work with state lawmakers on more laws that regulate automation and AI affecting workers... The AFL-CIO task force plans to help unions take on problematic use of AI in collective bargaining and contracts and in coming months to develop a slate of model legislation available to state leaders, modeled on recently passed and newly proposed legislation in places including California and Massachusetts.
The president of the California Federation of Labor Unions also supports a proposed state law "that would prevent employers from primarily relying on AI software to automate decisions like terminations or disciplinary actions," according to the article. "Instead, humans would have to review decisions. The law would also prohibit use of tools that predict workers' behaviors, emotional states and personality."

America's Labor Unions are Backing State Regulations for AI Use in Workplaces More | Reply

America's Labor Unions are Backing State Regulations for AI Use in Workplaces

Comments Filter:

  • I get why the unions are picking fights with AI. But "titles" and "abbreviations associated with nurses"?

    Maybe programmers should insist that AI not be given titles like "software engineer" or abbreviations like "dev". We wouldn't want people to be confused about "dev bots"!

    • Re:Nurse-associated abbreviations (Score:5, Informative)

      by quintessencesluglord ( 652360 ) on Sunday August 17, 2025 @12:14AM (#65595008)

      Probably related to not having AI cash in of the most trusted profession for over two decades and not wanting any misrepresentations with that.

      Medical abbreviations are HIGHLY regulated so there is no miscommunication. AI presenting abbreviations as if it understands the context of what is conveyed medically is going beyond giving a false impression and into possibly life threatening.

      • I suspect that they (likely correctly) are worried about attempts to put bots in the chain delegating to "unlicensed assistive personnel", who are currently only supposed to be doing patient-facing stuff under more or less close direction by doctors or nurses. Unless you've got a really fancy robot or are specifically looking to do machine vision on MRIs, the logical point of entry would be a bright, cheerful, logo and some stuff about how AI is 'empowering paraprofessionals to drive patient outcomes' or so

        • Sure, I get it. But machines, including AI bots, aren't going to need "abbreviations." If a nursing care facility buys a patient hoist, or a food cart, or a vital signs monitor, or whatever, those pieces of equipment don't need "abbreviations"--they just need to be certified as equipment capable of safely performing the task they are built for. AI machines would need to go through a similar type of certification, but not the same certifications humans aspire to.

          • I don't know if they will succeed; but that's why I suspect that one major entry attempt will be the "empower paraprofessionals" line; and specifically avoiding being construed as a 'medical device'.

            Obviously medical device vendors aren't going to just ignore the possibilities; there's already a fair amount of signal processing going on in some areas and if 'AI' is either trendy enough to merit a rebrand of what they are doing already or promising enough to be an addition to the processing pipeline they'

            • Yes, I largely agree with you.

              There *is* a real need in this area. Skilled care facilities find it extremely difficult to find enough staff to run their operations. Nurses and other employees could argue that they should just pay higher salaries to attract more people, but the facilities are constrained by the amount that insurance or the government will pay for care. As a result, many facilities are under-staffed, leading to poorer care and outcomes. Machines, including AI machines, could help improve the

      • I have no doubt you are correct about the motivation. My point is that it's misplaced fear. Those "highly regulated" positions require a person to complete specific types of education and certifications. It's not sufficient to just "know" the material, one must go through the process.

        Even if a bot could go through the process, I don't think anyone would be confused by, or tempted to use, nurse-associated abbreviations. Equipment (which is what bots are) is sold using different kinds of marketing.

    • Aren't nurses constrained in what procedures they can perform based on certain job titles? There's a lot of them:

      https://www.nu.edu/blog/types-... [nu.edu]

      By constraining AI based on official job title, you limit what an AI is allowed to do in the nursing profession.

      • There are innumerable stories about AIs doing things they were programmed not to do because of a loophole.

        Why would you think an AI posing as a nurse would be any better at being constrained than the other half-assed AIs that we have now?

        • The point is that humans in an org can find cases of someone using an AI to make a diagnosis or to write a prescription in a scenario where a specific nursing certification is required, and push back if said human finds that the AI didn't have the required title or designation to make said diagnosis/prescription. Then the intervening human can get the hospital review board to investigate, leading to consequences for whomever misused the AI. People could have their medical licenses revoked or even be fined

      • Yes, certainly.

        In those jobs, nurses use all kinds of automation tools. For example, nurses used to manually check vital signs on a schedule. These days, a machine is hooked up, and monitors vital signs automatically. No one thought the vital signs monitor needed a designation of LPN or similar, to be able to monitor vital signs. It simply needed to go through an FDA approval process that certified that it was capable of tracking vital signs.

        AI tools are the same. They won't need "abbreviations"--they'll ne

    • Maybe programmers should insist that AI not be given titles like "software engineer" or abbreviations like "dev".

      Many states have legal protections on the title of "engineer" but with some high profile abuses on such laws those laws have lost some of its bite. I assume most everyone can recall how a city council wanted to silence a man that exposed problems with traffic lights, a problem that created a safety problem and would impact city revenue from tickets given out to people that were accused of running the light. They accused him of practicing engineering without a license, and were wiling to put him in prison

      • Your "engineer" example is on point. But nobody is building AI tools and labeling them as "engineers," nor are they even tempted to. Such a label is not useful, even if your goal is to sell a product. In software development, the AI tools are called things like "AI coding assistant." Maybe people who are "assistants" should be worried about their titles.

        You're right, unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. The humble pallet overcame stiff union resistance from longshoremen, and likewise, AI bots will

    • The difference between medicine and IT is that that the titles are totally non-binding when it comes to IT.

      It does add a certain amount of faff and confusion to trying to compare titles between organizations; but there's just not much urgency or cogency to trying to nail down titles when there are no requirements beyond confidence, misplaced or otherwise, to do anything. "Developer" vs. "Software Engineer" can sometimes tell you something about how a person thinks about what they are doing; but it's not

      • And yet, no AI vendors are attempting to use these "non-binding" titles or abbreviations for their AI products, even thought they could if they wanted to.

        Perhaps "assistants" should be worried about AI tools using that label.

        • Not all of them are; but "Devin the AI software engineer" has had me in a weirdly stubborn torrent of ad spend, so I know at least someone is doing it(and the place is rotten with "AI SOC Analysts", including ones that basically just seem to be the same EDR heuristics the company was selling last year dumping text into an LLM that has been told to apply an executive summary tone); and you can't swing a stick without hitting someone describing a service account as a 'virtual employee' in a thought-leadership

          • Ah yes, I forgot about Devin. The word "weird" definitely applies here. It feels weird, to give an AI coding assistant, a name like Devin. Using titles like "engineer" would also seem more like over-the-top marketing, than an actual title.

            In a similar vein, I find it annoying and cringy, how AI will respond to my questions with things like "That's a great observation, Tony!" Right, whatever, just answer the question, no need for fluff.

            I find it fascinating to watch how our interaction with AI is changing. I

  • States where unions are already powerful, will fall in line and pass laws and regulations banning AI. Unfortunately, other states that are more anti-union, will promote the use of AI. Guess which states businesses will choose, who want to use AI?

    The American Midwest is a case study in what happens when unions try to prevent technological advancement. The advancement goes elsewhere, leaving behind a "rust belt."

    • You think? [wikipedia.org]
      Seems to me the highest GDP-per-capita states are all pretty pro-union, with perhaps the exception of North Dakota- but that's an oil boom economy. It won't last.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 )

        Seems to me the highest GDP-per-capita states are all pretty pro-union, with perhaps the exception of North Dakota- but that's an oil boom economy. It won't last.

        Seems to me the states with highest GDP, excepting North Dakota, are on the coasts. That will attract high earners because people that can afford a view of the sea will move to get it. Then is that a lot of trade happens by sea, which means more opportunities for work when in a coastal state. I can go on about other factors that can contribute to income than unions.

        Statistics will tell you anything you want if you torture them enough. I was going to give examples but decided against it as that might be

        • Seems to me the states with highest GDP, excepting North Dakota, are on the coasts. That will attract high earners because people that can afford a view of the sea will move to get it. Then is that a lot of trade happens by sea, which means more opportunities for work when in a coastal state. I can go on about other factors that can contribute to income than unions.

          That's quite simply not true.
          You could change your argument to "want proximity to the sea so that they can travel to it", but the fact is, in California and Washington, the high earners don't live on the actual coast.
          In fact, we live quite a ways from it.

          I can go on about other factors that can contribute to income than unions.

          Of course, but all I needed to do in order to cast serious doubts on the assertions was demonstrate that the trend isn't just a little bit the opposite- it's universally the opposite.
          The lowest per-capita GDP states in the country are states with strong

        • Also, having recently gone around with someone on this, purchasing power is a failing argument- I wouldn't bother making it.
          It's quite easy to demonstrate that even with the increased cost of living, which is generally modeled similar to CPI- someone at one of these higher income places has far more money left over to spend on things that do not have locally inflated prices.

          This is also easily demonstrated by median wealth, where somewhere like Washington has over twice as much as Texas (again, median)
          P

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Because as we know, everyone in LA can see the sea from their house much as Palin could see Russia...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Louisiana has a coastline

          • Louisiana has a coastline

            Louisiana also has New Orleans.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              1. What's the issue with New Orleans? 2. Coastlines only count if you say so? Can we say "moving the goalposts". Wonderful, I knew we could do it.

      • GDP by definition, excludes imports, and excludes intermediate goods like steel and oil and crops used as inputs into other products. So GDP isn't a great measure of the economic well-being of a state. So correlating GDP to union affinity, doesn't really tell us much about how unions affect the lives of people in various states.

        • GDP by definition, excludes imports

          Uh, correct... lol

          and excludes intermediate goods like steel and oil and crops used as inputs into other products.

          No shit... the value of that is included in the other product.

          So GDP isn't a great measure of the economic well-being of a state.

          That... is so laughably absurd I don't know where to start.

          It's a measure of the actual gross domestic product.

          So correlating GDP to union affinity, doesn't really tell us much about how unions affect the lives of people in various states.

          Well this is kind of weaselly. Does it tell us if it causes their marriages to break up more? No. It doesn't.
          But it does tell us that they make more money, and that economies that support them produce more.
          Now, I'm not saying it's causative- all we've done here is point out a correlation.
          However, the correlation i

          • One problem with using GDP as a measure of union success is that even in the states with highest unionization, only about 20% of the workers belong to unions. Still, this map of union affiliation [wikipedia.org] (in 2017) does seem to have some commonalities with the GDP map.

            Obviously there could be some third factor that affects both union membership and GDP.

          • So GDP isn't a great measure of the economic well-being of a state.

            That... is so laughably absurd I don't know where to start.

            Clearly, you don't know where to start, because you don't have a real response to it.

            Texas, for example, has a very high rate of output of intermediate products, you know, like oil, natural gas, cotton, sugar cane, soy beans. All the money from the sale of those products does go into the pockets of Texans and helps them live the life they want to live, but it doesn't count in GDP.

            GDP isn't a useful measure to make the point you're trying to make.

            • Clearly, you don't know where to start, because you don't have a real response to it.

              No, because it was truly stupid.
              You think there's a problem with GDP because it doesn't include imports and intermediates... It doesn't, because then you would be double counting.
              You... simply are not intelligent enough to have this conversation.

              Texas, for example, has a very high rate of output of intermediate products, you know, like oil, natural gas, cotton, sugar cane, soy beans. All the money from the sale of those products does go into the pockets of Texans and helps them live the life they want to live, but it doesn't count in GDP.

              If those intermediates are sold outside of Texas, then they count. If they're used within Texas, they don't count, and nor should they, because the product they go into represents the value of it + that product.

              GDP is the Gross Domestic Product.
              It is an accou

  • we need to look to lowering full time hours and re (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Saturday August 16, 2025 @11:58PM (#65595002)

    we need to look to lowering full time hours and remove healthcare from jobs!

    • lowering full time hours or raising pay (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      we need to look to lowering full time hours and remove healthcare from jobs!

      You get a choice. You can't do both.

      Lowering full time hours but you still get paid at your current hourly pay scale. This leaves the business free to hire additional workers at the same pay scale to fill in the short hours,

      OR

      Keep the same hours but get a pay raise. You still work 40 hours a week but you bring home more money. Which do you prefer? More free time or more take home pay?

      And by removing healthcare from jobs I assume you mean disconnect the need to have a job at a company big enough to subs

  • will laws like you can't pump your own gas show up?

    • Unlikely. None of these fields are really fertile ground for DIY. Unless you plan on being your own nurse or something.

      • Unlikely. None of these fields are really fertile ground for DIY. Unless you plan on being your own nurse or something.

        That's kind of exactly the point: there are a number of medical procedures and activities which you go to a nurse now and in the future an AI might be able to do. That's what the unions want to head off.

        Personally, I'm a bit skeptical about AI replacing nurses: I don't think Claude is going to draw blood or change a bedpan any time soon. It's possible there's some amount of grunt work involved in nursing, filling out paperwork, double checking dosages, things like that, where I could imagine an AI assisting

    • Certainly laws, that require personal licenses to butcher cattle for public consumption are reasonable. But, you don't need a license to inject yourself with an overdose of heroin.  The concept is clear: you can piss on your own 40-acre property, but not run a 24/7 oil-fed bonfire in your burbish back yard. 

  • The economy requires mass employment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrStrangeLug ( 799458 ) on Sunday August 17, 2025 @05:36AM (#65595202)
    This mad rush to make AI take over any and all jobs is going to cause a massive recession whether it fails or succeeds. If it fails a lot of big tech companies are going to have their share value tank and shake the market and cause a recession. If it succeeds gradually every job will be automated, massive unemployment will follow and that will cause a recession. We're boned either way and it's going to trigger either collapse or we finally have to ask ourselves what society we want and how we keep everyone happy, homed and fed. Perhaps a greed based economy isn't the answer.

    • This mad rush to make AI take over any and all jobs is going to cause a massive recession whether it fails or succeeds.

      Thing is, we've heard those same arguments every single time a major productivity breakthrough happens. Steam-powered looms, tractors, cars, shipping containers, computers, the Interwebs, now AI, they all have dramatically affected the labor market, lots of pre-existing jobs vanished and new jobs were invented. Employment shocks, when they happened, were brief and people adjusted. I'm a programmer and the current job market is disconcerting. I'm glad I'm not a new college grad because it's going to be much

  • Mixed bag (Score:3)

    by allo ( 1728082 ) on Sunday August 17, 2025 @07:26AM (#65595288)

    "require autonomous vehicles to have a human safety operator who can intervene during the ride"
    Bullshit once the systems are good enough. We also do not have people walking in front of autos to warn people anymore, even though autos indeed kill many people every year.

    "prohibits AI from using the title "nurse" or any associated abbreviations"
    Who cares? The new word could become more valuable, if the AI overlords become better nur- eh whatever they are called then.

    "proposed state law "that would prevent employers from primarily relying on AI software to automate decisions like terminations or disciplinary actions,""
    Very useful, not only for AI based decisions. There are too many automations when it comes to managing and surveilling employees. Get back a boss who knows his employees instead of non-human methods trying to measure efficiency and whatever.

    • "require autonomous vehicles to have a human safety operator who can intervene during the ride" Bullshit once the systems are good enough.

      A while ago, there was a debate in the computing community about autopilots for commercial aircraft. The question was how much automation was optimal. If there's too little automation, there will be more human errors. If there's too much automation, pilots will have too little to do, won't be able to pay attention over long periods, and won't be ready to intervene in case of emergency. Safety operators for autonomous ground vehicles have the same problem. Just driving for long periods is hard enough; I sus

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by allo ( 1728082 )

        This are good points, in particular, because I would not think they will get good enough soon.

        But paying someone just to sit there IF there is no need for it anymore is bullshit.
        Your question, about how to keep the person awake as long as there is demand is in the near future more important.

        And it can be also an interesting thing how it depends on the ratio of autonomous cars. If all cars are automated and stick to traffic laws, it will work better than with more unpredictable cars on the street. Which rais

  • Some of these are reasonable and may make sense given specifically how LLMs behave. Others are just the worst sort of job protection. And the attempt to essentially outlaw driverless cars is pretty similar to the red flag laws in the 1890s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws [wikipedia.org] where people were required to have someone else waving a red flag walk in front of any car. Given how many traffic fatalities there are yearly, maybe a generally stricter attitude about car safety would have benefited e

  • AI cannot pay union dues

  • I find it hardly surprising that unions would want to protect current jobs regardless of any deleterious effects on the general public. That's their raison d'etre. You'll forgive me if I ignore their self-serving opinion.

    I find it especially noxious they want to essentially ban self-driving cars, even when the car isn't being used for hire. I personally can't wait to not have to drive myself to work. My kids can drive and I'm dearly hoping any grandchildren they produce never need to learn. That's probably

  • Sadness

  • Yep, protect the workers by restricting the tools they use.

    Harm the workers because they can't compete against peers with better tools elsewhere

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.

Close