This post was originally published on this site.
By Phineas Pope and Lauren Gallup
Phineas Pope: In Washington State, decisions on the use of technology in the workplace have been made by management for public workers. That’s been the case for over 20 years. But now, some lawmakers want to pass an exemption that would allow public sector employees to bargain on one broad and ever changing technology – artificial intelligence. NWPB’s Lauren Gallup has been reporting from Tacoma and joins me now.Â
So first, just to get a basic understanding of what’s being discussed in the legislature, what is artificial intelligence?
Lauren Gallup: I like this definition that comes from Stanford that says artificial intelligence is “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs.” For the bill, Washington lawmakers looked at how California defines artificial intelligence. Based on that, Washington decided that this is the use of machine learning and other similar technologies that use data to train models to make computer systems that are able to perform tasks that we would normally associate with human intelligence and perception.
Pope: With that in mind, what is the legislation being proposed with House Bill 1622, and its companion bill, Senate Bill 5422?
Gallup: If these bills passed, they would make an exemption to current state law, which gives management the decision making authority on technology in the workplace for things like artificial intelligence. It would allow public sector employees to basically bargain over implementation, use and changes of AI in their jobs.
Pope: Why is AI being determined as different enough from other technologies to warrant these bills?
Gallup: One thing that we hear a lot about AI in the workforce, is its power to automate work, and so then, by doing that, really replace workers. And that was a concern for Cherika Carter. She’s the secretary treasurer of the Washington State Labor Council, and she expressed that concern at a hearing about the House bill.Â
Cherika Carter: “We are concerned that state agencies may choose to replace workers with AI before this technology has been adequately vetted, or may invest in the state’s currently limited funds and technology that doesn’t solve our existing problems, such as workload.”
Gallup: Carter went on to say how this technology could actually benefit workers and the public they serve, but only if workers can be part of the decision-making process in how this gets done. Ultimately, what those in support of these bills are saying is not that they’re against AI in the workplace, but that they want workers to have a seat at the table to determine how it impacts and benefits them.
Pope: How has AI impacted public sector employees in Washington so far?Â
Gallup: The Washington State Department of Natural Resources uses AI to detect wildfires, which allows for constant monitoring. I think there’s a lot of ideas about how this work could maybe streamline and automate jobs that deal a lot with form submission and that sort of thing. But also, because it’s so new and is developing constantly, I think workers are also really curious about what could be used in the future to benefit them.
Pope: What specifically are workers worried would happen if they’re not part of the decision-making process surrounding AI?
Gallup: I spoke with Kati Durkin, who’s a lobbyist for the Washington Federation of State employees, and she said, beyond job replacement.
Kati Durkin: “We also don’t know if, you know, if AI was brought into the workplace, if the state would increase workloads for existing employees to include managing AI software, maybe without additional compensation, or if they would use it to track employee data.”
Gallup: Others have also spoken about how there could be poor utilization of these technologies without having the worker insight on how the tools should work with them and their jobs.
Pope: What concerns have you heard against the proposed legislation?
Gallup: In the House hearing, I heard some people who represent local governments express how this additional bargaining could cost them more money. Candice Bock is with the Association of Washington cities, that’s a nonprofit group that represents Washington cities before the state legislature, and she says the decision should really be left to management.Â
Candice Bock: “We are concerned about this bill because we feel like it significantly impairs the management right to make a business decision about whether or not something is appropriate for that city.”
Gallup: She went on to say how public employees already have to bargain for anything that impacts wages, hours and working conditions with their employers – so that would give employees the chance to voice their opinion on those decisions. But I will say, lawmakers and Durkin, (who’s the lobbyist) say the state has pointed to the law on technology, specifically as a reason to not bargain on any AI implications.
Pope: And where do these two bills stand as of now?
Gallup: It looks like the House bill is more likely to keep rolling along and moving forward. That’s because last week, the majority recommended passing a substitute version of that bill, which is very common as things are moving through committee. In regards to the Senate bill, it was in committee last week in Executive Session, but no action was taken.
Note: This transcript has been edited for clarity.