Labour rights and risks in a mutating world

The challenge is thus to respond with more preparedness in the life cycle of existence, where work is a major contribution to not only human livelihood but also self-esteem with a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging.  In particular, the following issues thus deserve greater attention.

Firstly,  there is the exponential spread of digitalization and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Work has mutated with now a huge “platform” workforce, such as deliverers of food and provisions linked by “apps” and mobile phones. Some belong to groups conditioned by Big Data,  while others are more into individual tasks, often working at home, such as writing digital programmes, without long-term contracts, while performing on a more-than-piecemeal basis. Are they employees to benefit from existing labour law and labour rights, such as minimum pay, rest periods, the possibility to belong to trade unions and sick leave?

The traditional response is to claim that these “gig workers” are not employees but are self-employed or independent contractors and that they are not covered by labour law. However, this situation is now undergoing reassessment to enable them to be covered by some labour law guarantees. This is especially due to the pressures that many of such workers undergo, exemplified by motor-bike riders having to compete with allocated time to deliver goods, replete with algorithmic targeting for them to perform in good time.  In the case of failure to perform, related points will be deducted, thus affecting the promised payment and ultimately, their welfare and safety.

A possible way of addressing this dilemma is to recognize a category of  “workers”, separately from “employees”. This would entail guaranteeing some rights for the former although not on par with the latter group.  The guarantees would include minimum pay and rest periods. They could also include the “right to disconnect” whereby those using these workers for various tasks will leave them to rest without disturbance for defined periods.  However, arguably, those guarantees might not include freedom of association to set up unions and to engage in collective bargaining.

The debate concerning the pros and cons of how to “formalize” these informal workers under labour law continues.  A converse angle is to argue that platform workers and others in a similar position prefer to be beyond the reach of the traditional labour law because they prefer not to be vetted by the State authorities regarding tax payments.  However, this argument should not undermine the response needed to address the current situation whereby they need greater protection from exploitation. 

What of the advent of  AI? Is it stealing jobs from humanity?  A recent study from a key international organization working on labour rights indicates that basic income share has declined with the arrival of  AI in the workplace.  This suggests that AI is replacing humans in some jobs. However, to be fair, the situation should be disaggregated. That job replacement might be due to AI linked with automation.  There are other situations where AI can help to create jobs for humans,  such as workers to help upskill and capacity-build for digital literacy.  New maintenance mechanics/engineers are also needed to service the digitalization and AI, such as feeders of data sets to train AI and to provide repairs.  A new profession of humans will be needed to address the psycho-traumas which result from a fixation on digitalization and AI, in a world also needing “digital detox”.

While the benefits of digitalization and AI cannot be denied, there are now many initiatives globally to protect fundamental rights and freedoms. The right to privacy as linked with personal data protection has been recognized extensively with the adoption of new laws on this issue. There is also consistent advocacy that humans should be in control of  AI (“humans in the loop” and not “humans beyond the loop”), and there are emerging ethical standards and laws against the misuse of  AI. The trend includes the prohibition of  AI systems where they distort people’s emotions “subliminally” and of social scores whereby data are used to discriminate against people regarding their particulars. Special protection for children and other vulnerable groups from excessive digitalized consumerism is afforded by new laws. The recently adopted Global Digital Compact at the UN-backed Summit of the Future complements this by tasking a global scientific panel to assess AI developments, especially to trace and track AI safety and transparency.

On another front, the dangers posed by global warming and climate change are self-evident in their interface with the workforce and their families, especially regarding human security. How to cushion them against the vagaries of environmental changes?  This is very much linked with the need for more social protection measures to prepare the population to be absorptive and adaptive to confront risks and mishaps. Guarantees of basic income, special provisions such as cash transfers to children and families, universal health care, pensions for the ageing population, support for persons with disabilities and others subjected to vulnerabilities, such as displacement, and special funds for victims of disasters all need to be part of an ecosystem for protection of those at work and those out of work. Those not counted as working (such as mothers caring for children at home) traditionally, but who are carers for the young and for the elderly, also deserve incentives, especially with a gender lens.

Thus it is timely to advocate more provisions to extend maternity leave and paternity leave, as well as assistance for the full range of carers,  to formalize the social protection system to encompass those who were previously on the fringe. This adds the element of empathy to revitalize the age-old maxim that “labour is not a commodity”.  Transformatively.

Vitit Muntarbhorn

Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor Emeritus at Chulalongkorn University.  He was formerly a member of  the International Labour Organisation (ILO)’s Committee of  Experts on the Application of  Conventions and Recommendation (CEACR).  The article is derived from his speech at the recent Asian Labour Law Conference, held in Bangkok.