The US discusses employee interaction with AI in companies — CNBC
In the United States, experts are discussing how companies should respond to conflicts and employee complaints related to artificial intelligence. As CNBC reports, Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, proposed the concept of Robot Relations in a July commentary — a field that could complement traditional HR departments.
In West’s view, as AI use grows, employee concerns will increasingly relate not to relationships with colleagues but to interactions with AI agents, chatbots, large language models and collaborative robots. Possible questions include whether an employer can require a person to use AI and who is responsible for an error at work: the employee or the system.
Algorithms in personnel management
Tensions between employees and algorithmic systems are already arising over claims of possible bias in technologies used in personnel processes, including for evaluating staff or identifying candidates for layoffs. A bill approved by California lawmakers would prohibit the use of so-called “robot bosses” for dismissals or disciplinary action. At the time of publication, the document was awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature or veto.
At an experimental store in San Francisco operated by Andon Labs, the AI system Luna was entrusted with a significant part of operational management, including hiring, scheduling and employee management. In August, it recommended firing an employee for the first time.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Meta also faced a lawsuit filed by former employees in July. The plaintiffs claim that AI-powered systems were used to rank and select people for layoffs, disproportionately affecting employees who took medical or family leave. Meta denied these claims.
Oversight and the role of employees
The International Labour Organization defines algorithmic management as systems that organize, allocate, monitor, supervise and evaluate work — functions traditionally performed by managers. According to the organization, such tools are spreading in customer service, transport, logistics, banking and healthcare. AI can support professional decisions, but it can also set work processes, standardize procedures and limit employees’ autonomy.
According to an OECD survey released at the end of the previous year, 90% of managers in the United States said their companies had introduced at least one tool for instructing, monitoring or evaluating employees. Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, a professor at the Technical University of Munich, believes that a new unit or expanded HR powers could assess AI’s impact on people’s well-being, professional development and career prospects.
Kristina Zaga, an associate professor at the University of Twente, noted that employees often oversee automated processes, fix malfunctions and intervene when machines cannot cope. In her view, employees should play a meaningful role in managing and designing automation, rather than merely adapting to it.
