
BILL: Should We Limit AI in the Work Environment? - The No Robot Bosses Act - S.2419
Tell your reps to support or oppose this bill
The Bill
S.2419 - A bill to prohibit specific uses of automated decision systems by employers, and for other purposes
Bill Details
- Sponsored by Sen. Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.) - Introduced July 20, 2023
- Committee: Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
- House: Not yet voted
- Senate: Not yet voted
- President: Not yet signed
Bill Overview
- Targets artificial intelligence by protecting workers from "robot bosses." It would prevent employers from relying solely on automated systems like algorithms and machine learning tools in making hiring decisions.
- Compels employers to maintain human oversight over any decisions made by AI in the workplace.
- The legislation responds to increasing reports of workers being fired and discriminated against by automated decision systems during the hiring process.
- The bill is cosponsored by Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and supported by the AFL-CIO, the Communications Workers of America, the National Employment Law Project, and the Economic Policy Institute.
- It would require employers to train their employees on how to use AI systems, and assess the need for an AI governance framework, taking into account considerations related to algorithmic discrimination and biases, data privacy, and transparency.
- Requires timely disclosures from employers on the use of automated decision systems and the inputs and outputs of these systems.
What's in the Bill?
Regulates AI hiring processes
- Prevents AI systems from unanimously making hiring decisions, like scanning resumes for employment gaps or keywords. The bill requires human collaboration in the hiring process.
Maintains human oversight over employment decisions
- Puts AI decision-making on shifts, and performance reviews would need to be overseen by a human manager.
- The bill states:
"Systems and software, not humans, are increasingly making decisions on whom to interview for a job, where and when employees should work, and who gets promoted, disciplined, or even fired from their job."
- Workers could not be fired merely due to AI decision-making.
Establishes a regulatory agency
- The bill would establish a regulatory agency at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) called the "Technology and Worker Protection Division."
What Supporters are Saying
"Maybe you're a delivery driver and your employer's tracking algorithm determines you're not performing up to its standards — and then sends you an email to let you know you've been fired without any warning or opportunity to speak to a human being," the summary continues. "In 2023, these scenarios are no longer just imaginary. … Without oversight and safeguards, these 'robot bosses' increase the risks of discrimination, unfair disciplinary actions, and dangerous working conditions."
- Sen. Casey said:
"Right now, there is nothing stopping a corporation from using artificial intelligence to hire, manage, or even fire workers without the involvement of a human being. As robot bosses become more prevalent in the workplace, we have an obligation to protect working families from the dangers of employers misusing and abusing these novel technologies."
Tell your reps to support or oppose this bill
—Emma Kansiz
(Photo Credit: Canva)
The Latest
-
Changes are almost here!It's almost time for Causes bold new look—and a bigger mission. We’ve reimagined the experience to better connect people with read more...
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy
-
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment
-
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... Families