One day last month, a man with a carefully trimmed white beard stood on the sidewalk in front of Uber headquarters in London. He squeezed a transparent plastic folder, in which there was a pile of letters, printed emails and carefully described, handmade map.
Ghulam Qadir stayed “Deactivated” by Uber in 2018. After he said that there was a misunderstanding with a passenger who paid him in cash when the application canceled her journey. He tried to explain to Uber what happened (hence the map), but he said that nobody was listening to him. He even engaged a MP. It seems that resorting to the help of a politician has become a replacement for Uber drivers to press the next buttons while talking to customer service, when you want to just talk to man. Qadir thought it was madness. “Parliament should deal with matters of the whole world, but not mine,” he said.
He was in the Uber office to give a petition of 10,000 from drivers and their supporters, at which the Platform of Employee Rights of Organise helped. The goal was protest against “automatic release” and “unfair deactivations”.
For his part, Uber told me that his policy has improved significantly since November 2023, and all drivers can now ask for their case to consider Expert panel. “We are constantly working on our approach to transparent and fair,” said the spokesman. However, the petition is one of the signs of underestimated tension in the British government's approach to the future.
The Prime Minister promised to eliminate bureaucracy to pump the artificial intelligence “in the vein” of the British economy, convinced that this would increase productivity, and thus economic growth. On the other hand, the government also promised to make professional life more fair and less uncertain to low -paid employees.
Of course, these goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
High rate decisions
It is in the interest of the employees Increasing productivity Assuming that they will ensure their participation in these increases in productivity. Many employees already decide to use the generative tools of artificial intelligence (sometimes even without the knowledge of their employers) because they see value in shortening some taskssuch as writing e-mails.
However, one of the increasingly common applications of artificial intelligence and other algorithmic tools is to make decisions about a high rate regarding employees – from recruitment to performance management. A survey conducted last year by OECD among over 6,000 mid -level managers in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and the United States showed that The use of algorithmic management tools, for the first time made famous by companies, such as Uber, is currently common.
Continuation of the material under the video
The indicator ranged from 90 percent. In the US, up to 40 percent in Japan. However, even managers seemed to feel some anxiety about these tools. Six out of 10 said that the technology improved the quality of their decision -making process, but almost two -thirds had at least one fear. The most frequently mentioned worry was unclear responsibility In the event of an erroneous decision, and then the inability to follow the logic of the algorithm decision and insufficient protection of employees' physical and mental health.
On the side of the people
In Great Britain, these tensions are visible in the Act on the data (use and access), which passes through the parliament. Trade unions are afraid that one of the provisions of the Act will weaken the law regarding automated decision making. The law would change from a general ban with some exceptions to General presumption of permissionalong with some security, such as the fact that people should be able to question the decision in their case, to explain how it was made and obtain human intervention.
For Adam Cantwell-Corn, a political specialist in TUC, an organization of trade unions, the problem is that these security would burden the individual and often act after the fact. “[Powiedzmy, że] The employee receives a decision to dismiss, manage results, recruit, whatever it is – first of all you need to know that this has happened. Then you need to go through various legal and bureaucratic obstacles to demand information and question it, “he said.” Even in environments where there are active and thriving trade unions, it becomes quite difficult. In highly unstable workplaces, this becomes practically impossible. “
Current protection against automated decisions is already poorly enforced. But the principle behind the change of law still matters. Protechnological mantra of Silicon Valley “move quickly and destroy things” does not work so well, if “things” that you can destroy, then in fact people standing on the sidewalks with a pile of printed emails in their hands. Especially if you are a government that promised to be on their side.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
