UK is calling for strict AI oversight

Calls for stricter UK oversight of workplace AI have been growing as campaigners, trade unions, and MPs voice concerns about its impact on staff rights. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is holding a conference to highlight the challenges of ensuring workers are treated fairly as “management by algorithm” becomes increasingly prevalent. Mary Towers, an employment lawyer who runs a TUC project on AI at work, believes AI can make work more rewarding, satisfying, safer, and fairer. However, she warns that the technology is developing so rapidly that stakeholders need to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.

One of the main concerns raised by the TUC is the growing use of employee surveillance. The Royal Mail has come under fire after the chief executive, Simon Thompson, admitted that some postal workers’ movements were minutely tracked using handheld devices. The data was then used for performance management. At Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, striking staff have described a tough regime of ever-changing targets that they believe are set by AI. The company has defended itself by stating that these performance goals are “regularly evaluated and built on benchmarks based on actual attainable employee performance history”.

United Tech and Allied Workers, a branch of the Communication Workers union that focuses on the sector, has highlighted worries about being monitored at work. Its chair, Matt Buckley, states that there is currently no regulation around employee surveillance as a concept. Buckley argues that what is needed is not a series of new laws but a new body that can be flexible, iterative, and responsive to workers’ needs.

One of the most alarming cases of AI at work involves judgments about workers’ behavior being made by algorithms, with little or no human oversight. These include so-called “robo-firings.” A group of UK-based Uber drivers recently successfully took the platform to the court of appeal in Amsterdam to force it to reveal details about how decisions had been made about them. The company is considering whether to appeal against the case at the Dutch supreme court. A spokesperson said that Uber maintains the position that these decisions were based on human review and not on automated decision-making.

Campaigners warn that the UK government is poised to weaken the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in forthcoming legislation. They argue that the data protection and digital information bill, due to have its second reading in the House of Commons, will make it easier for firms to turn down workers’ requests for data held about them and loosen the requirement to have a human involved in decision-making. Cansu Safak, of the campaign group Worker Info Exchange, which supported the Uber case, said, “We’re essentially trying to bridge the gaps in employment law by using the GDPR. The reason we’re using the GDPR is that these workers have no other recourse. They have no other avenues of redress.”

Labor’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, who has the future of work in her portfolio, believes that rights at work must keep pace with the powerful potential of data analysis and artificial intelligence, which are already transforming the economy. Rayner states that Labour will update employment rights and protections so that they are fit for the modern economy. Separately, the UK government published a white paper on AI last month that set out a series of principles for the use of the technology, including the need for fairness, transparency, and “explainability.” The paper suggested that existing regulators, including the Health and Safety Executive and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could take on the responsibility of ensuring these principles were followed.

 David Davis, a former cabinet minister with a history of defending civil liberties, believes that a rapid royal commission should be conducted on the best way to oversee AI, with the key principle being that if you use AI, you are responsible for its consequences. Meanwhile, TUC is calling for a statutory duty for employers to consult with workers before introducing new AI and for a right to explainability to be granted to workers.

The UK has long been a global leader in innovation and technology, with a thriving ecosystem of startups and established tech giants. However, the recent call for strict oversight over workforce AI could potentially weaken the UK's position as a hub for innovation and technology.

One of the primary concerns with strict oversight over workforce AI is that it could stifle innovation. Startups and other companies may be hesitant to invest in new technologies if they believe that they will be subject to stringent regulations and oversight. This could lead to a slowdown in the pace of technological innovation, which could ultimately harm the UK's economic growth and competitiveness.

Strict oversight could also make it more difficult for UK companies to compete with international rivals. Many countries around the world have more permissive regulatory environments when it comes to AI, which could give companies in those countries a competitive advantage. If the UK imposes strict regulations on workforce AI, it could put UK companies at a disadvantage when competing in global markets.