Who Gets a Say When AI Runs the Workplace? ILO Puts Workers' Rights Under the Spotlight

A new ILO study exposes a critical gap in workplace AI ethics, finding that fairness, transparency and privacy alone cannot adequately address workers' rights. As artificial intelligence increasingly influences hiring, surveillance and performance evaluation, researchers highlight the need to integrate collective bargaining, worker representation and social dialogue into AI governance.

Artificial intelligence is entering workplaces with the ability to influence hiring, monitor employees and evaluate performance, but the principles governing these systems may overlook a fundamental question: who gets a say in how they operate? New research from the International Labour Organization (ILO) argues that ethical AI governance must extend beyond individual fairness and technological transparency to include collective labour rights, worker representation and social dialogue.

The ILO working paper, AI Ethics and the ILO's international labour standards system: exploring synergies, authored by Jordi Agustí-Panareda and Daniel Samaan, examines the relationship between widely recognized AI ethics principles and international labour standards. Its findings suggest that established labour protections offer a foundation for addressing questions emerging as algorithmic systems become part of employment decisions.

The research challenges an important limitation in contemporary AI governance discussions. Ethical guidelines often emphasize whether algorithms are fair, understandable and respectful of individual autonomy. Yet workplace technology operates within employment relationships shaped by institutional responsibilities, collective rights and unequal authority over decisions. Evaluating AI without considering those relationships leaves significant questions unresolved.

The Missing Voice in the AI Ethics Debate

Five principles anchor the researchers' comparison: justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and explicability. Together, they address fairness, beneficial outcomes, prevention of harm, individual decision-making and the ability to explain technological processes. These principles share substantial common ground with the ethical foundations of international labour standards, particularly human dignity, well-being and protection against unfair treatment.

The distinction emerges when attention shifts from individual protections to collective participation. Conventional AI ethics frameworks frequently examine the rights of people affected by automated decisions, while international labour standards also recognize freedom of association, collective bargaining and social dialogue. Those rights introduce questions about who participates in decisions concerning workplace technologies.

An algorithm might satisfy expectations of transparency while leaving unanswered whether workers were involved in discussions about its introduction. Similarly, an employment assessment system may be designed around fairness without addressing the role of collective representation in governing its use. The ILO researchers identify these institutional dimensions as essential considerations in responsible technological governance.

The difference is more than a disagreement over ethical terminology. Individual protections concern how a system treats a person, whereas collective labour rights concern how workers participate in shaping employment conditions. Bringing these perspectives together widens the debate from the conduct of algorithms to the governance arrangements surrounding their deployment.

For employers, such an approach introduces a broader understanding of ethical responsibility. For workers, it places established rights alongside emerging concerns about automated systems. The paper does not present these frameworks as alternatives; instead, it argues that their strengths can complement one another as technological practices evolve.

When Workplace Decisions Become Algorithmic, Fairness Gets Complicated

Recruitment and performance evaluation reveal why general ethical commitments require more concrete interpretation. When artificial intelligence helps assess job applicants or employee performance, questions arise about the information being processed, the reasoning behind decisions and the ability to establish accountability. Transparency becomes closely connected to fairness in employment procedures.

The researchers also identify workplace surveillance, personal data collection and algorithmic management as areas demanding renewed attention. Such technologies raise questions that cannot be resolved simply by describing an AI system as beneficial or efficient. Their use must also be considered against principles protecting workers' rights and dignity.

An important distinction concerns the relationship between explaining a technological decision and ensuring that the decision-making process respects labour standards. Understanding how an algorithm reaches an assessment is relevant, but accountability also involves examining whether the wider employment process is fair and consistent with applicable labour principles.

Personal information introduces another dimension. AI-supported workplace systems can involve collecting and processing employee data, bringing privacy and autonomy into direct contact with employment governance. The paper identifies these concerns without suggesting that every use of workplace AI necessarily produces a rights violation.

The challenge for governments, employers and workers is therefore not merely identifying ethical risks but determining how established protections apply when decisions involve increasingly complex technological systems. AI ethics can highlight concerns around transparency, privacy and potential harm, while labour standards offer an institutional framework for examining their workplace consequences.

Such interaction also works in the opposite direction. Emerging ethical questions surrounding artificial intelligence can inform discussions about how international labour standards should be understood and applied under changing technological conditions. The relationship is potentially reciprocal rather than one framework simply absorbing the other.

From Voluntary AI Principles to Labour Rights: The Governance Test

The ILO study highlights a fundamental weakness of relying exclusively on broad ethical guidelines: agreement on desirable principles does not automatically establish how they should operate in specific workplace situations. Commitments to transparency or fairness require interpretation when applied to hiring assessments, monitoring systems and algorithmically supported management decisions.

International labour standards introduce an established body of principles and rights into these discussions. Their relevance lies not in offering a ready-made technical solution for every AI application, but in providing a framework through which technological practices can be examined against expectations concerning working conditions, representation and social justice.

The ILO's tripartite structure offers another institutional dimension. By bringing together governments, employers and workers, it creates a framework for discussing artificial intelligence through social dialogue. This broadens responsibility for ethical governance beyond those who develop or introduce technological systems.

Nevertheless, identifying common ethical foundations is not equivalent to demonstrating that existing labour protections can resolve every emerging challenge. Questions remain about translating transparency into accountable employment procedures, applying collective rights to algorithmic management and incorporating technological concerns into established labour frameworks.

The researchers call for further investigation and dialogue into these connections. Their analysis identifies areas where existing rights and emerging ethical principles could jointly inform responses to workplace technological change.

The key tension concerns how authority over workplace AI is exercised and examined. Ethical systems may help identify whether an algorithm operates fairly, but international labour standards introduce an additional question about the participation of those whose employment is affected. Future governance discussions will need to consider both dimensions.

Artificial intelligence may change the processes through which employment decisions are reached, but technological sophistication alone cannot settle questions of workplace accountability. The ILO's research places collective rights within a debate often dominated by individual safeguards, suggesting that responsible AI governance ultimately requires attention to both the technology making decisions and the employment relationships within which those decisions operate.