What Should We Do After Work? Automation and Employment Law

C. Estlund
{"title":"What Should We Do After Work? Automation and Employment Law","authors":"C. Estlund","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3007972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Will advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning put vast swaths of the labor force out of work or into fierce competition for the jobs that remain? Or, as in the past, will new jobs absorb workers displaced by automation? These hotly debated questions have profound implications for the fortress of rights and benefits that the law of work has constructed on the foundation of the employment relationship. This Article charts a path for reforming the law of work in the face of both justified anxiety and uncertainty about the future impact of automation on jobs. \nAutomation is driven largely by the same forces that drive firms’ decisions about “fissuring,” or replacing employees with outside contractors. Fissuring has already transformed the landscape of work and contributed to weaker labor standards and growing inequality. A sensible response to automation should have in mind the adjacent problem of fissuring, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the dominant legal responses to fissuring—which aim to extend firms’ legal responsibility for the workers whose labor they rely on—do not meet the distinctive challenge of automation, and even modestly exacerbate it. Automation offers the ultimate exit from the costs and risks associated with human labor. As technology becomes an ever-more-capable and cost-effective substitute for human workers, it enables firms to circumvent prevailing legal strategies for protecting workers and shoring up the fortress of employment. \nThe question is how to protect workers’ rights and entitlements while reducing firms’ incentive both to replace employees with contractors and to replace human workers with machines. The answer, I argue, lies in separating the issue of what workers’ entitlements should be from the issue of where their economic burdens should fall. Some worker rights and entitlements necessarily entail employer duties and burdens. But for those that do not, we should look for ways to shift their costs beyond employer payrolls, or to extend the entitlements themselves beyond employment. The existing fortress of employment-based rights and benefits is under assault from fissuring and automation; it is failing to protect those who remain outside its walls, and erecting barriers to some who seek to enter. We need to dismantle some of its fortifications and construct a broader foundation of economic security for all, including those who cannot or do not make their living through steady employment.","PeriodicalId":76903,"journal":{"name":"Employee benefits journal","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee benefits journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3007972","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Will advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning put vast swaths of the labor force out of work or into fierce competition for the jobs that remain? Or, as in the past, will new jobs absorb workers displaced by automation? These hotly debated questions have profound implications for the fortress of rights and benefits that the law of work has constructed on the foundation of the employment relationship. This Article charts a path for reforming the law of work in the face of both justified anxiety and uncertainty about the future impact of automation on jobs. Automation is driven largely by the same forces that drive firms’ decisions about “fissuring,” or replacing employees with outside contractors. Fissuring has already transformed the landscape of work and contributed to weaker labor standards and growing inequality. A sensible response to automation should have in mind the adjacent problem of fissuring, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the dominant legal responses to fissuring—which aim to extend firms’ legal responsibility for the workers whose labor they rely on—do not meet the distinctive challenge of automation, and even modestly exacerbate it. Automation offers the ultimate exit from the costs and risks associated with human labor. As technology becomes an ever-more-capable and cost-effective substitute for human workers, it enables firms to circumvent prevailing legal strategies for protecting workers and shoring up the fortress of employment. The question is how to protect workers’ rights and entitlements while reducing firms’ incentive both to replace employees with contractors and to replace human workers with machines. The answer, I argue, lies in separating the issue of what workers’ entitlements should be from the issue of where their economic burdens should fall. Some worker rights and entitlements necessarily entail employer duties and burdens. But for those that do not, we should look for ways to shift their costs beyond employer payrolls, or to extend the entitlements themselves beyond employment. The existing fortress of employment-based rights and benefits is under assault from fissuring and automation; it is failing to protect those who remain outside its walls, and erecting barriers to some who seek to enter. We need to dismantle some of its fortifications and construct a broader foundation of economic security for all, including those who cannot or do not make their living through steady employment.
下班后我们应该做什么?自动化与就业法
机器人技术、人工智能和机器学习的进步是否会使大量劳动力失业,或者对剩下的工作岗位展开激烈竞争?或者,像过去一样,新的工作岗位会吸收被自动化取代的工人吗?这些激烈争论的问题对劳动法律在雇佣关系基础上构建的权利和福利堡垒有着深远的影响。面对自动化对工作的未来影响的合理焦虑和不确定性,本文描绘了改革工作法的路径。推动自动化的力量,很大程度上与推动企业决定“决裂”(fisting)或用外部承包商取代员工的力量相同。分裂已经改变了工作环境,导致劳动标准降低,不平等加剧。对自动化的明智回应应该考虑到相邻的断裂问题,反之亦然。不幸的是,对裂缝的主要法律回应——旨在扩大公司对其所依赖的工人的法律责任——并没有满足自动化的独特挑战,甚至适度地加剧了这种挑战。自动化提供了与人力劳动相关的成本和风险的最终出口。随着技术成为人类工人的一种能力更强、成本更低的替代品,它使企业能够绕过保护工人和巩固就业堡垒的现行法律策略。问题是如何保护工人的权利和福利,同时减少公司用承包商取代雇员和用机器取代人类工人的动机。我认为,答案在于将工人应享有何种权利的问题与他们的经济负担应落在何处的问题区分开来。工人的一些权利和权利必然包含雇主的义务和负担。但对于那些不这样做的人,我们应该想方设法将他们的成本转移到雇主工资之外,或者将福利本身扩大到就业之外。现有的以就业为基础的权利和福利堡垒正受到分裂和自动化的冲击;它未能保护那些留在墙外的人,并为一些试图进入的人设置障碍。我们需要拆除其中的一些防御工事,为所有人,包括那些不能或不能通过稳定就业谋生的人,建立一个更广泛的经济安全基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信