Where are the workers when we talk about the future of work?

CEOs, Silicon Valley investors, and techno-academics talk to themselves about new technologies, but workers must have a say in these debates as well.

BY STEVEN GREENHOUSE, 22 Oct 2019

There’s something hugely awry with many of the discussions about the wave of new technologies confronting us and what they mean for the future of work: Specifically, the people who will be most affected and hurt by the wave of new technologies—America’s workers—are usually left out of the discussions. It’s unfortunate and illogical that the CEOs and Silicon Valley investors driving these conversations rarely include workers—after all, by some estimates the number of people who will lose their jobs because of robots and artificial intelligence is staggering. The McKinsey Global Institute forecasts that automation will, by 2030, destroy more than 39 million jobs in the United States, while two Oxford professors estimate that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of being automated by 2033.

Nonetheless, and rather strangely, at the dozens of conferences held across the country about “the future of work,” there rarely is a seat at the table for workers or worker representatives. By contrast, there are plenty of seats for billionaire investors, millionaire executives, as well as consultants and technology gurus. As a dismayed Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, has written: “Too often, discussions about the future of work center on technology rather than on the people who will be affected by it.”

It often seems that the corporate executives rushing to introduce artificial intelligence, robots, and other new technologies plan to give workers as much say in these matters as zoo managers give to the animals about revamping a zoo.

There’s an unfortunate explanation for why workers have often been left out of these discussions. As I explain in my book Beaten Down, Worked Up, worker power and voice in the U.S., whether in the workplace or in politics, has declined to its weakest point in eight decades. Whether it involves raising the federal minimum wage (which hasn’t been increased in a decade), replacing a dozen workers with robots, or moving a factory overseas, workers’ concerns are too often overlooked.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the executives and engineers behind these new technologies pay little heed to the workers who would be affected. Just 1.5 percent of U.S. workers in professional and technical services are unionized, and just 3.7 percent in computer and mathematical operations are—far lower than the nation’s overall 10.5 percent unionization rate.

Going forward, any discussions or conferences on the future of work should include at least some workers or their representatives, perhaps union officials or worker-friendly academics. I’ve even heard talk of having workers picket any new “future of work” conference that doesn’t include some workers among the panelists.

If workers (or their representatives) have a voice in the design and development of the technologies of tomorrow, that might help corporations and engineers design these technologies in a more worker-friendly way, perhaps minimizing worker stress or boredom. Giving workers a say might help maximize the ability of employees to work with or alongside robots and other new technologies, instead of being replaced by them. There is huge focus nowadays on developing driverless cars and trucks, but there is far less focus on how these technologies will affect the millions of people who make their livelihood as drivers—whether of trucks, taxis, or Ubers or Lyfts. Workers should also have a say in all these discussions to help ensure that the jobs of the future are good jobs, with solid pay and benefits and a humane, non-frenetic pace of work.

It would be great if the federal government helped ensure that workers have a voice in these conversations on technology’s effects on workers, but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said the issue “isn’t even on our radar screen.” Labor unions are also somewhat at fault for workers having so little say in these discussions. Unions have not hired or trained nearly enough people who can speak knowledgeably on these issues.

The Silicon Valley executives and investors who dominate “future of work” discussions often promote universal basic income to serve as a lifeline for the millions of workers who might lose their jobs because of new technologies. Many champions of UBI see this idea as a way to minimize worker opposition to the anticipated flood of new technologies. The universal basic income figure I most often hear from Andrew Yang and others is $1,000 a month for every American over age 18. Good luck living on $12,000 a year.

Some UBI supporters assert that if UBI is instituted, safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps will no longer be needed, and some even say Social Security and Medicare should be phased out, too. I imagine that millions of workers will have very strong opinions about these proposals to eviscerate the social safety net. That’s all the more reason it’s wrong to exclude workers from these discussions. While tech execs vigorously discuss UBI among themselves, a recent Hill-HarrisX poll found that Americans oppose UBI by 57 percent to 43 percent, with older workers most strongly opposed.

Many workers would much prefer to have a job than sit at home and receive UBI. It confounds me that “future of work” discussions rarely touch on something workers would badly want—instead of seeing some companies lay off, say, one-third or more of their employees due to new technologies, workers would no doubt want corporations to embrace large-scale work-sharing, perhaps having all employees work a 25-hour or 30-hour workweek, instead of laying off a huge swath of the workforce. Work is often critical to people’s maintaining their self-worth, something to which UBI advocates often pay too little attention.

The hotel and restaurant workers’ union, UNITE HERE, has arguably had the most success in negotiating about technological advances, such as robots that handle room-service deliveries or touchscreens that replace waiters in restaurants. The powerful hotel workers’ union local in Las Vegas (Culinary Workers Union Local 226) and the hotel casinos there agreed to create a committee that will study how employees can be trained to harness—and work alongside—new technologies, instead of being replaced by them. Their contract calls for giving the union 180 days’ warning before hotels deploy new technologies and for hotels to try to find new jobs for any displaced workers. In my book, I quote UNITE HERE’s president, D. Taylor: “You are not going to stop technology. The question is whether workers will be partners in its deployment or bystanders that get run over by it.”

On this front, what’s happened in Las Vegas shouldn’t stay in Las Vegas. Workers should have a seat at the table, and that would make it far less likely that millions of workers will get steamrolled as corporations rush to introduce a brave new world of tomorrow’s technologies.