Democracy must set the standard

Standardisation of how artificial intelligence is deployed in the workplace is not a technical but a political matter.

As the world changes, the realm of standards changes too. Take artificial intelligence, which is sketching profound, if uncertain, shifts in that world. While there is a technical component to designing the algorithms and sourcing the data these feed off, there is also a deeply political and social dimension to this.

As with any form of ‘intelligence’, AI serves specific interests. The balancing of the interests that design and shape AI is key to ensuring that this era-determining breakthrough serves not just those of profit-maximisation but the broad interests of our societies as a whole, including workers and trade unions.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a prominent technical standard-setting body, is moving to bring in sweeping standards on uses of AI and associated technologies—such as surveillance, sensors and automation—in the workplace. Trade unions are sounding the alarm on an attempt to apply technical solutions to an issue that must be addressed at a political level, where the voice of workers can be properly heard.

Role of standardisation

Standards play a vital role in facilitating the interoperability of products and services, allowing manufacturers to create compatible solutions. All the way back to the advent of the metric system to 5G today, it is clear that the harmonisation of norms is a crucial pillar structuring the European single market and its efficiency.

Standardisation also plays an important role in keeping people safe at work. By defining technical requirements such as measurement methods for emissions—noise, vibration, radiation, harmful substances and so on—standardisation contributes to safer workplaces and to protection of workers’ health. But making machines safe to operate is also a cornerstone of standardisation, in particular as machines become more (artificially) intelligent.

Another side of standardisation, perhaps less well known, is it often acts as king-maker among competing corporate strategies. If an early adopter of a developing technology can contribute its expertise to setting norms which are de facto binding, so that its approach complies with standards to which its competitors will be held, it can cement a first-mover advantage.

This same logic can play out at a global level. The tussle between geopolitical players over setting standards that might benefit their domestic first-movers can be decisive in determining the ‘global champions’ of tomorrow. The political dimension of conflicting geopolitical interests is dealt with by the multilayered negotiation channels of international relations.

Political problems

Technical problems need technical solutions; political problems need political ones. The recent move by the ISO to bring in technology standards for the organisation of the workplace would undermine the necessary distinction between these, with far-reaching implications.

There is a lot we don’t yet know about how applications of new technology will affect the world of work. We are however already seeing many instances of disproportionate and undue surveillance, discriminatory treatment on the basis of biased algorithms and abuse of data protection and privacy.

Addressing these issues requires balancing the interests of corporate management and working people throughout the design and application of new technologies. Collective bargaining and social dialogue are the tried and tested tools for achieving that balance. Only when workers can flag issues without fear of retaliation and have the collective power to remediate them can we achieve the cumulative tweaks needed to ensure technology delivers for all parties.

Standard-setting bodies have been designed to set technical standards by companies for companies—which in many cases pay for participation in such bodies. As a result, there is little or no democratic oversight built into them. Workers do not have a meaningful say. Handing this problem over to an unelected body of technicians and corporate interests, to model and anticipate changes and set in stone a one-size-fits-all solution, is a recipe for disaster.

Unions are often outvoted although they represent thousands, sometimes millions, of workers. Yet a union presence in the making of technical standards that have an impact in the workplace is crucial. Trade unionists know about the problems as we are the ones who come from the shop floor—and we know good solutions.

Democracy should mandate standards, rather than standards closing down space for democratic forms of decision-making. The AI Act gets the order right: legislation brought in through consultation and balancing of interests carves out specific instances in which standardisation can be developed and applied.

Beyond the dangers of building in structural abuses, bringing in standards that compete with the space for negotiations carries profound dangers for democracy. Treating the vast impacts of new technology’s application to the world of work as the exclusive prerogative of management would deeply skew the power balance between workers and employers. When workers are stripped of access to information that determines life-shaping decisions for them, collective bargaining itself is undermined and with it any hope of achieving shared prosperity.

Red lines needed

Red lines are thus needed to delimit the contours of standardisation:—

Labour is not a commodity. People cannot and should not be treated as standardisable goods. The moment the exercise of fundamental rights is affected is the moment standardisation must no longer have free reign.

Democratic processes take precedence. The freedom of workers’ unions and employers’ organisations to bargain collectively or engage in social dialogue on developing topics such as technology in the workplace must be guaranteed. When it comes to international bodies, the International Labour Organization, with its tripartite democratic structure, is the legitimate space for achieving consensus towards international agreements relating to the world of work.

No standardisation without representation! Trade unions are pragmatic. We recognise the advantages of standardisation in boosting productivity. That is why the European Trade Union Confederation is dedicated to increasing attention to these processes. Yet our resources for following the broad range of technical standards are vastly inadequate in comparison with those underpinned by the profit motive of corporate engagement. To rectify this, standardisation bodies must engage in a democratisation process, ensuring that workers not only have a grip on the decisions made at the table but also have the resources to make an input on health-and-safety risks.

Far-reaching technological breakthroughs are often accompanied by a wave of utopia-infused excitement. The key to remaining clear-headed and steering change to deliver for all is to distinguish between those issues of a technical and those of a political nature—and equipping our societies with the appropriate tools to resolve them accordingly.