Labour rights in a mutating world

The world of work is undergoing significant changes amidst risks in a precarious setting. The poly-crisis surrounding the workplace ranges from health risks from global warming and climate change to political constraints and demographic changes with an ageing population in several parts of the world. The challenge is thus to respond with more preparedness in the life cycle of existence, where work is a major contributor to not only human livelihood but also self-esteem, 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 digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). Work has mutated with a now vast “platform” workforce, such as food deliverers and provisions linked by “apps” and mobile phones. Some belong to groups conditioned by big data. In contrast, others are more individual tasks, often working from home, such as writing digital programmes, without long-term contracts, while performing on a more-than-piecemeal basis. Are these employees to benefit from existing labour laws 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 such workers endure, exemplified by motor-bike riders competing against allocated times to deliver goods, replete with algorithmic targeting to induce performance. In the case of failure to perform, “points” are deducted, negatively affecting payment and their welfare and safety.
One possible way of addressing this dilemma is to recognise 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, such guarantees might not include freedom of association to set up unions and engage in collective bargaining.
The debate concerning the pros and cons of “formalising” 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 traditional labour laws 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; they need greater protection from all forms of exploitation.
What of the advent of AI? Is it stealing jobs from humanity? A recent study from a key international organisation 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 reasonably assess these findings, the situation should be disaggregated. That job replacement might be due to AI linked with automation. In other situations, AI can help create jobs for humans, such as helping workers to upskill and capacity-build for digital literacy. New maintenance mechanics/engineers are also needed to service the digitalisation and AI, such as feeders of data sets to train AI and to provide repairs. A new profession will also be needed to address the psycho-traumas which result from fixation on digitalisation and AI in a world also needing “digital detox”.
While the benefits of digitalisation 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 recognised extensively with the adoption of new laws on this issue.
There is also consistent advocacy for humans to 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 prohibition of AI systems that distort people’s emotions “subliminally” and of social scores whereby data is used to discriminate against people regarding their particulars. Special protection for children and other vulnerable groups from excessive digitalised 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 in regard to human security. How to cushion them against the vagaries of environmental changes? This is linked with the need for more social protection measures to prepare the population to adapt 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 or family carers for the elderly) also deserve incentives, especially with a gender lens.
Thus, it is timely to advocate for more provisions to extend maternity and paternity leave, as well as assistance for the full range of carers, to formalise the social protection system to encompass those previously on the fringe. This adds an element of empathy to revitalise the age-old maxim that “labour is not a commodity”.
Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor Emeritus at Chulalongkorn University. He was formerly a member of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) 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.