Give staff more say over AI to ensure they share benefits, UK thinktank urges

AI at work is becoming a power question

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, backed by the Trades Union Congress, argues that workers need more bargaining power over how artificial intelligence is adopted in the workplace. Its core claim is straightforward: AI will change working life, but the outcome for employees will depend on who gets to shape the transition.

The report arrives with a mixed early picture of employee experience. According to the source text, 20% of workers surveyed said AI is making their working life better, while 21% said it has made it worse. Another 4% said they believed they had already lost a job because of the technology. That split helps explain why the report frames this as a pivotal moment rather than a routine productivity upgrade.

Three paths for AI at work

The IPPR breaks AI’s impact into three categories: augmentation, degradation and displacement. Augmentation means AI complements human labor. Degradation refers to uses that make work worse, including more intensive monitoring and management. Displacement is the most direct threat, with workers replaced altogether.

That distinction matters because public debate often treats AI adoption as if it were a single process with a single effect. The report instead argues that workplace outcomes depend on governance, incentives and representation. In that view, AI is not neutral once deployed inside organizations. It reflects the balance of power between management and labor.

What the report proposes

The package of recommendations includes a statutory duty on employers to consult workers over AI adoption. The report says that consultation could happen through existing collective bargaining structures, new worker representation on boards, or a new consultative body.

It also proposes a worker support levy, funded by companies or workers, to create a portable wallet of benefits. The idea is to let workers carry support mechanisms such as union membership, insurance or training from job to job, strengthening their bargaining position in a labor market likely to be reshaped by automation and AI-enabled management.

Why this debate is broadening

Paul Nowak of the TUC, writing the report foreword, argues that major technological transitions only produce social progress when they are actively shaped. That is the underlying political message of the document. The authors are not calling for a pause in AI adoption. They are calling for institutions that stop the gains from flowing only to employers, executives or shareholders.

The argument also reflects a wider shift in how AI policy is discussed. Early debates centered on frontier models, existential risk and national competitiveness. Increasingly, the focus is moving into offices, warehouses, call centers and public services, where AI systems are already changing scheduling, evaluation, monitoring and task design.

A labor policy test for the AI era

The report does not claim that every workplace will need the same rules or structures. What it does claim is that workers should not face AI as isolated individuals with no formal say. If that idea gains traction, it could push AI regulation away from abstract principles and toward enforceable workplace rights.

For employers, that would mean more process and possibly more cost. For workers, the proposed changes aim to convert AI from something done to them into something negotiated with them. The outcome of that debate will help decide whether AI at work is mainly experienced as support, surveillance or substitution.

This article is based on reporting by The Guardian. Read the original article.