Tag: collective bargaining

September 17, 2025

Negotiating Union Contracts in a High-Inflation Economy

Although inflation has cooled from its 2022–23 peak, it remains a defining factor at the bargaining table. Workers feel the cumulative effects of rising prices over the past several years. At the same time, employers face higher labor costs, escalating healthcare expenses, and demands for greater flexibility around where and how employees work. For employers with unionized workforces, these challenges are amplified. Negotiating union contracts is no longer just about splitting the difference on wage percentages—it is about balancing long-term financial stability with short-term employee expectations, preserving operational control while accommodating workplace changes, and finding creative ways to deliver value without locking in commitments that may become unsustainable if the economy shifts again.

This article offers employers practical strategies for negotiating union contracts in a high-inflation environment, focusing on three of the most contentious issues: wages, healthcare costs, and remote-work arrangements.

Inflation and Collective Bargaining

Inflation directly drives bargaining pressure. When the cost of groceries, housing, and transportation goes up, employees expect their wages to rise at least enough to maintain their standard of living. Unions will highlight members’ real-wage erosion and push for agreements that provide protection against continued volatility.

Employers have been here before. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, when inflation often hit double digits, cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) clauses became widespread in union contracts. As inflation moderated in the 1990s and 2000s, most employers phased out automatic COLAs, viewing them as too unpredictable and costly to maintain. Now, with inflation stabilizing but still running above the Federal Reserve’s 2-percent target, unions are again pressing for some form of inflation protection.

When preparing economic proposals, employers should:

Model affordability over the life of the agreement: Do not just budget year-to-year; understand what a multi-year wage pattern will cost when layered with healthcare, overtime, pensions, and roll-up effects.
Benchmark against industry peers: Unions will bring comparables to the table. Employers should know where they stand and avoid commitments that dramatically exceed local or industry norms.
Avoid long-term overcommitments: Be cautious with front-loaded increases or open-ended COLA clauses. What feels manageable today can become a liability if the economy slows and competitors are not living with similar terms.

Structuring Wage Increases

There is no one “right” way to build wage proposals, but employers should consider the following tools when negotiating union contracts:

Multi-year structures: Contracts can front-load or back-load increases. Front-loading provides workers with immediate relief but may leave employers paying above-market wages if inflation falls. Back-loading defers costs but risks resentment if inflation stays elevated. Many employers blend the two approaches, offering a strong first-year increase followed by smaller annual raises.
COLA triggers with caps: Rather than reinstating open-ended COLA provisions, employers can negotiate limited formulas. For example, wages could increase by a fraction of CPI, subject to a maximum percentage each year. This acknowledges inflation without handing over full control of wage growth to external forces.
Lump-sum bonuses: One-time payments can provide meaningful cash to employees without permanently raising base wages or compounding overtime, pension, and other benefit costs. Employers should, however, expect pushback from unions that prefer base-building increases for long-term earnings stability.
Tiered or differentiated increases: Wage increases can depend on seniority, skill level, or job classification. This can be a way to reward critical skills or long-service employees while moderating costs elsewhere. But employers should watch for morale issues and potential legal risks if disparities are too wide.

In every case, employers must ensure compliance with wage-and-hour rules, including minimum wage and overtime requirements under federal and state law. A wage package that looks good on paper can create compliance problems if it doesn’t account for legal requirements.

Managing Healthcare Costs When Negotiating Union Contracts

Healthcare costs are a perennial concern, and they are often one of the toughest issues in negotiating union contracts, especially in today’s environment of rising claims and specialty drug expenses. Employers are projecting annual cost increases well above general inflation. Unions know this and will often resist cost-shifting measures, framing them as benefit reductions rather than necessary adjustments.

Practical approaches include:

Employee cost sharing: Adjusting premium contributions, deductibles, or copays spreads costs more evenly. Employers should pair these adjustments with clear messaging that changes are designed to preserve overall benefit levels, not cut them.
Plan design changes: Options such as high-deductible plans, spousal surcharges, or dependent eligibility audits can provide meaningful savings. These changes, however, must be bargained carefully and communicated clearly to avoid perceptions of unilateral takeaways.
Wellness and preventive programs: Initiatives that encourage healthier lifestyles can reduce utilization over time. Framed correctly, these programs can be seen as joint investments in employee well-being.
Reserve funds or cost-sharing formulas: Some employers negotiate contract language that sets aside reserves or defines how future spikes will be shared. This can reduce conflict down the road when costs inevitably rise.

Employers should remember that health benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Unilateral changes—even well-intended—can lead to grievances or unfair labor practice charges.

Remote Work and Flexibility

Remote work has emerged as one of the most complex bargaining issues since the pandemic. For many employees in relevant positions, the ability to work from home is now viewed as a standard benefit, not a temporary privilege. Unions may seek to embed remote-work guarantees in contracts.

Employers, however, must think carefully before committing. Remote work implicates productivity, supervision, safety, and even cybersecurity. Once written into a CBA, these arrangements can be hard to adjust.

Strategies for handling remote-work demands while negotiating union contracts include:

Pilots with sunset clauses: Agree to trial programs with defined end dates. This allows both sides to evaluate productivity and employee satisfaction without permanent commitments.
Clear management-rights language: Preserve employer discretion over work locations. Where possible, limit contract language to procedures (such as how requests will be considered) rather than entitlements.
Distinguish accommodations from entitlements: ADA or state law may require remote work as a disability accommodation in some cases. Those obligations should be addressed separately, not written into the collective agreement as universal rights.

Handled carefully, remote-work provisions can be structured in a way that provides employees with flexibility while ensuring employers retain control over core operational decisions.

Leaving Room to Adapt

In high-inflation environments, union proposals tend to be more ambitious. Employers need mechanisms that provide flexibility over time:

Side letters or MOUs: Use these for experimental provisions. They provide flexibility to test new ideas without locking them into the core agreement.
Reopener clauses: Tie reopeners to inflation thresholds, healthcare cost increases, or legislative changes. This ensures that both sides can revisit the contract if conditions change dramatically.
Strong management-rights clauses: Explicitly protect employer discretion on operations, staffing, technology, and scheduling. These clauses become especially valuable when economic conditions shift mid-contract.
Non-economic benefits: Consider creative alternatives—training, scheduling input, vacation flexibility—that can be highly valued by employees without carrying heavy ongoing costs.

Employers should also pay close attention to past practice and industry comparables. Arbitrators frequently rely on these benchmarks when interpreting disputed contract terms.

Practical Approaches to Negotiating Union Contracts at the Table

The bargaining process itself can shape outcomes as much as the proposals on the table. Employers should:

Be transparent but strategic: Share enough financial context to build credibility, but avoid “opening the books” in ways that limit flexibility later.
Prepare detailed costing models: Understand the true cost of each proposal, including wage roll-ups, overtime, and pension implications. A one-percent wage increase often costs far more than one percent once these effects are included.
Use interest-based bargaining where appropriate: Focusing on mutual interests—such as stability, recruitment, and sustainability—can sometimes open the door to creative solutions that meet both parties’ needs.
Stay consistent and credible: Bargaining is as much about trust as economics. If management develops a reputation for following through on commitments and maintaining consistent positions, unions are more likely to engage constructively.

For employers, negotiating union contracts during high inflation requires not only careful costing but also a clear communication strategy that builds credibility with both union leaders and employees.

Conclusion

High inflation creates challenges for both sides of the bargaining table when negotiating union contracts. Unions want to protect members’ purchasing power; employers must guard against unsustainable cost growth. But with careful planning, creativity, and a willingness to use flexible tools, employers can negotiate agreements that provide meaningful improvements without jeopardizing financial stability.

The most effective strategies combine structured wage proposals, proactive healthcare cost management, cautious approaches to remote work (where applicable), and adaptive bargaining mechanisms such as side letters and reopeners. Employers who enter negotiations prepared, consistent, and transparent are best positioned not only to reach agreements in this inflationary environment, but also to build stronger long-term labor relationships.

For more employment law updates, sign up for the Horton Management Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

August 13, 2025

Employment Law Due Diligence: A Buyer’s Guide to M&A Transactions

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) remain a critical part of corporate growth strategy, even among smaller, privately held companies. While acquirers usually devote significant resources to financial, tax and operational diligence, many deals fall apart due to unanticipated employment‐related liabilities. Employment law due diligence is not simply a box to check—it is an essential process that identifies hidden risks, informs valuation, and shapes integration strategies. For buyers in asset or stock transactions, the workforce and its associated obligations can either enhance the value of the acquisition or quickly turn it into a liability.

Deal Structure: Asset Purchases vs. Stock Purchases

The starting point for employment law diligence is understanding the type of transaction. Whether the deal is structured as a purchase of equity or as an acquisition of assets has a dramatic impact on which employees transfer, which liabilities carry over and the extent of legal flexibility for the buyer.

Stock Purchases and Mergers: Automatic Transfer of Employees

In a stock purchase or merger, the buyer acquires the target entity in its entirety. The underlying legal entity remains intact, which means that employees continue to be employed by the same company, just under new ownership. As a result, employment relationships generally transfer automatically without the need for new offer letters or acceptance processes. All existing liabilities—including past wage-and-hour violations, discrimination claims, pension obligations, and other compliance issues—remain with the acquired entity and are effectively assumed by the buyer. This continuity streamlines the transition but places a premium on thorough diligence. The buyer needs to know exactly what obligations it is inheriting.

An equity purchase also means that existing contracts and licenses usually remain intact. Benefit plans, collective bargaining agreements, and restrictive covenants stay in place unless renegotiated. Therefore, buyers must review the target’s employee handbooks, employment agreements, severance policies, bonus plans, retirement plans, and any outstanding litigation. Without proper due diligence, a buyer could assume liabilities far beyond those contemplated in the purchase price.

Asset Purchases: Selectivity and Successor Liability Risks

In an asset purchase, the buyer acquires selected assets while the target continues as a separate legal entity, even if it later dissolves. The buyer may choose which employees to hire and which liabilities to assume. This flexibility is attractive when a buyer wants to cherry-pick talent and leave behind unwanted obligations. Employees who are offered positions typically must sign new employment agreements; those not hired remain the seller’s responsibility. Benefit plans generally stay with the seller unless the buyer expressly agrees to assume them.

However, buyers must recognize that asset transactions do not insulate them from all employment liabilities. Federal common law imposes successor liability in certain circumstances. Courts or government agencies may hold a buyer liable if it had notice of potential claims and substantially continued the seller’s business operations. Language in purchase agreements about “non-assumption” of liabilities may protect the buyer contractually, but it will not override statutory successor liability. Buyers should conduct robust diligence and, where appropriate, negotiate indemnification and escrow provisions to mitigate these risks.

Core Components of Employment Law Due Diligence

Employment law due diligence is broader than reviewing a target’s headcount and payroll. It requires a systematic evaluation of regulatory compliance, contractual obligations, workforce composition, and cultural compatibility. The following topics should be covered regardless of deal structure.

1. Reviewing Existing Employment Agreements and Policies

Individual contracts and offer letters. Review all employment agreements, offer letters, and severance arrangements. Buyers need to identify terms that may require renegotiation, such as compensation, equity, bonuses, restrictive covenants, change-of-control clauses, and termination rights. States vary considerably in their enforcement of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. For example, California effectively prohibits most post-employment restrictive covenants, while other states enforce them under specific conditions. Buyers should confirm that existing agreements comply with applicable laws and decide whether to issue new agreements upon closing.

Handbooks and policies. Analyze the target’s employee handbook, HR policies, and procedures for compliance with federal and state laws. Pay particular attention to hot-button items such as anti-harassment policies, equal employment opportunity statements, family and medical leave practices, background check procedures, and arbitration agreements. Ensuring that policies are up to date will reduce the risk of class actions or agency investigations.

Bonus and incentive plans. Determine whether bonuses are discretionary or non-discretionary. Non-discretionary bonuses must be included in the regular rate when calculating overtime for non-exempt employees; failure to do so exposes the employer to significant liability. The due diligence team should request documentation of all incentive programs and verify compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage laws.

2. Wage and Hour Compliance and Worker Classification

Misclassification of workers is one of the most common and expensive employment issues uncovered during diligence. Buyers should examine whether employees are properly classified as exempt or non-exempt under the FLSA and equivalent state statutes. Exemption status requires meeting both salary thresholds and duties tests; misclassified employees may be owed overtime and other damages. The purchaser should also review the target’s policies on overtime, meal and rest breaks, off-the-clock work, and timekeeping practices. Errors in these areas can result in agency audits and class or collective actions.

Independent contractors present another classification risk. Federal and state governments use various tests to determine whether a worker is truly an independent contractor. Misclassifying employees as contractors can result in liability for unpaid wages, taxes, benefits, unemployment, and workers’ compensation insurance. Due diligence should include an analysis of each contractor’s role, the degree of control the company exerts, and whether the worker provides services to other clients. Buyers may decide to reclassify certain contractors upon closing to mitigate future exposure.

3. Union and Collective Bargaining Agreement Issues

Buyers must identify whether the target company has a unionized workforce and whether any collective bargaining agreements contain successor clauses. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) applies a “successor employer” doctrine when a buyer continues the seller’s business and retains a majority of its employees. Even in an asset sale, if a majority of the buyer’s new workforce previously worked for the unionized seller, the buyer may be required to recognize and bargain with the union.

Union contracts often include provisions requiring the agreement to bind any successor or assign, limiting the buyer’s ability to change wages, benefits, or policies. Buyers should evaluate the terms of these agreements, including grievance procedures, seniority systems, job guarantees, layoff rules, and arbitration clauses. They should also determine when the collective bargaining agreement expires and whether there are pending grievances or arbitrations.

4. WARN Act and Mini-WARN Requirements

The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days’ advance written notice of a plant closing or mass layoff affecting at least 50 employees at a single site of employment. When a business is sold, the WARN Act applies notice obligations based on the timing of a plant closing or mass layoff. Generally, if the layoff occurs before or on the closing date, the seller is responsible for providing notice; if it occurs after the acquisition, the buyer must comply.

At least 20 states have their own mini-WARN laws with lower employee thresholds or longer notice periods. Buyers must analyze the workforce composition and planned workforce reductions to determine whether federal or state notice requirements apply.

5. Benefits, Pension, and ERISA Liabilities

Employee benefit plans can represent significant liabilities in an acquisition. Buyers need to review all benefit programs, including medical, dental, life insurance, disability, retirement, and other fringe benefits.

401(k) and other defined contribution plans should be reviewed for compliance and outstanding obligations. Defined benefit pension plans—though relatively rare these days—can impose substantial liabilities if underfunded. Health and welfare plans must meet ACA, COBRA, and other compliance obligations. Executive compensation arrangements should be checked for change-of-control provisions that could trigger severance or accelerated vesting.

6. Immigration and Form I-9 Compliance

If the target employs foreign nationals or sponsors work visas, immigration issues become critical. Stock buyers should review all Form I-9s for current employees to ensure they are complete and accurate. Asset purchasers typically must obtain new I-9 documentation from employees they intend to hire from the seller.

For employees on certain visas, transactions may require amended petitions or new filings depending on whether the employing entity changes.

7. OSHA and Workplace Safety

Under OSHA, employers must provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. Especially in potentially hazardous workplaces, buyers should request safety logs, review citations, and evaluate the target’s safety policies. Corrective actions may need to be implemented before or shortly after closing.

State Law Variations and Local Considerations

U.S. employment laws vary widely. Buyers should consider mini-WARN laws, non-compete enforceability, pay equity and salary history rules, paid leave mandates, and state marijuana laws, among others, when integrating a workforce. Acquiring companies without experience as employers in the target jurisdiction are especially at risk without additional scrutiny. In multi-state transactions, these variations can significantly complicate post-closing compliance.

Post-Closing Integration: Preparing for Day One and Beyond

Employment law due diligence is a critical aspect of any M&A transaction. By understanding the differences between asset and stock purchases, scrutinizing employment contracts and policies, assessing compliance, and planning for post-closing integration, buyers can better protect their investment and promote a smooth transition.

Even the most thorough diligence cannot eliminate all risks. Integration planning should begin well before closing and address onboarding, compensation alignment, communication, cultural integration, and retention of key personnel. Post-closing compliance monitoring is also crucial for addressing any issues identified during diligence.

For more employment law updates, sign up for the Horton Management Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

January 13, 2024

AI and the Laws of the Workplace

In the ever-evolving landscape of the modern workplace, the effect of AI on employment law emerges as a critical area of focus. Here we take an early look at the potentially complex interplay between rapidly advancing artificial intelligence technologies and the legal frameworks governing employment.

Changes in the Workforce

Job Displacement Concerns

The advent of artificial intelligence and automation has brought about significant shifts in the labor market, raising concerns about job displacement. This phenomenon isn’t just limited to traditionally manual roles. Sophisticated AI systems increasingly encroach on tasks once performed exclusively by humans.

For employment law, this technological upheaval presents unique challenges. Historically built around human workers, regulatory schemes are now facing the complex task of adapting to scenarios where machines can perform similar functions. The key legal issue here is determining the extent of employer responsibility in mitigating the impact of such displacements. This endeavor includes examining existing laws on layoffs and workforce restructuring to ensure they are equipped to handle the nuances of AI-induced job displacement. It’s not just about the loss of jobs, but also about the fairness and legality of the process leading to such workforce changes.

Integrating AI in the workplace raises questions about the nature of work itself and the definitions that employment law has long relied upon. For instance, if an AI system can perform tasks that once required a team of employees, what does this mean for those employees’ contracts, their job security, and their legal rights? This transition phase is critical; laws governing layoffs, severance, and unemployment benefits will come under scrutiny to ensure they adequately address these new realities. Employers must navigate these legal waters carefully, balancing the efficiency gains from AI with the legal and practical implications of their workforce decisions. They must consider the legal consequences of reclassifying or terminating positions due to automation and the costs vs. benefits of providing support, such as retraining or severance packages, to those affected.

The emotional and social impact of AI-induced job displacement also cannot be overlooked. While employment law primarily focuses on the legal and financial aspects of job loss, there’s a growing recognition of the need to address the psychological effects on displaced workers. This aspect is increasingly being scrutinized as a component of corporate social responsibility. Employers are being called upon not only to comply with the legalities of workforce restructuring but also to consider the broader human impact of their decisions. Companies may be increasingly expected to provide career counseling, mental health support, and transitional assistance as part of severance packages. The future of employment law in this area may see a more holistic approach, where the legal responsibilities of employers extend beyond mere financial compensation, encompassing a duty to aid in the well-being of their former employees during times of transition.

Emergence of New Job Categories

As AI reshapes the workforce landscape, it is displacing traditional roles and paving the way for new job categories. This evolution is birthing diverse positions that didn’t exist a decade ago, such as AI ethics compliance officers, robot coordinators, and data privacy managers. These roles are critical components in the modern business environment, bridging the gap between rapidly advancing technology and existing business structures. From an employment law perspective, the challenge lies in categorizing these new roles within the existing legal environment. Traditional employment classifications may not be apt for these novel positions, which often blend elements of technology, ethics, and management. Human resources professionals may need to reevaluate job classification criteria, benefits allocation, and labor standards to ensure they are inclusive of these new roles while safeguarding employee rights and interests.

The advent of these new job categories also raises questions about the skills and qualifications required, which in turn implicate hiring practices and employment contracts. Employers must navigate a landscape where job descriptions constantly evolve and require more highly specialized skills. Employment contracts for these roles might need to be more flexible and dynamic, reflecting the ongoing development and shifting responsibilities within these positions. A legal balancing act will be necessary to ensure that contracts are sufficiently specific to protect employer and employee interests while also being adaptable to the evolving nature of the work.

Additionally, there is the legal consideration of equal opportunity in hiring for these new roles. As these positions often require specialized skills and knowledge, there’s a risk of inadvertently excluding qualified candidates due to biases or unrealistic qualification expectations, which could lead to legal challenges based on discrimination laws.

Implications for Employment Contracts and Policies

Contractual Changes for AI-driven Roles

Integrating AI in the workplace may lead to a significant rethinking of employment contracts, particularly for roles directly influenced or augmented by these technologies. In AI-driven roles, where employees work alongside or are assisted by AI systems, job descriptions and responsibilities are no longer static but evolve as the technology evolves. Employment contracts must reflect this fluidity to ensure they remain relevant and enforceable. Employers must draft sufficiently flexible agreements to accommodate changes in job roles without compromising the clarity and enforceability of the terms. The agreement may include clauses that detail how job roles may change over time, processes for regular review and updating of job descriptions, and clear communication channels for employees to discuss and understand these changes. From a legal perspective, the challenge is balancing flexibility and specificity to protect both the employer’s operational needs and the employee’s job security and rights.

Performance metrics in AI-driven roles present a unique challenge. Traditional methods may not be suitable when employees work with artificial intelligence tools that significantly enhance their productivity or decision-making. Employers must develop new metrics assessing human contributions in a technologically augmented environment. This exercise requires careful consideration to ensure that employees are evaluated based on their skills, decision-making, and management of AI tools rather than purely on output, which the AI’s capabilities could heavily influence. Legally, this is a delicate area as it ties into compensation, promotions, and even termination decisions. Employment contracts or applicable policies may need to reflect how performance will be measured and rewarded in this context, and any performance-based incentives must be designed to account for the AI’s role in the employee’s work.

As machine learning and automation continue to advance, employees must keep their skills up to date to remain effective in their roles. Employment contracts might increasingly include ongoing training and professional development provisions, outlining the employer’s commitment to providing these opportunities and the employee’s responsibility to engage with them. This approach not only ensures that employees remain competent and competitive in an AI-augmented workplace, but also highlights the employer’s commitment to their workforce’s growth and adaptability. With or without new legal imperatives, new standards for how employers support employee development may result.

Intellectual Property and Data Privacy

The surge in AI-driven roles brings critical legal issues surrounding intellectual property (IP) and data security to the fore. In work environments heavily integrated with AI, a significant question arises: Who owns the IP created by AI tools, especially when they’re used by employees in their work? This question extends beyond traditional IP norms, as AI systems can create, innovate, or even make decisions autonomously. Employment contracts should clearly address the ownership of IP generated with the aid of AI. The challenge lies in drafting contract terms that fairly attribute IP rights between the employer, the employee, and potentially even third parties involved in providing or maintaining the AI systems. Laws also need to evolve in recognizing AI’s role in creation and innovation, potentially leading to new categories of IP rights and responsibilities.

Data security is another paramount concern in AI-integrated roles. Employees increasingly handle sensitive data with the assistance of AI tools, heightening the risks of data breaches or misuse. Employment contracts should include stringent data protection clauses, clearly outlining the employee’s responsibilities in safeguarding data and the legal ramifications of data breaches. These clauses need to be comprehensive, covering aspects like data access, usage guidelines, and reporting protocols in the event of a security incident. They will be especially crucial given the rise of stringent data protection laws like the GDPR and similar regimes, which impose heavy penalties for non-compliance. Employers must ensure that employees are not only legally bound to adhere to these data security standards, but are also adequately trained and informed about their responsibilities and the potential risks involved in handling data with AI systems.

In an era where AI-driven decision-making is becoming increasingly prevalent, there is a growing need to address the legal implications of decisions made or influenced by AI in the workplace. Employment contracts (or employee policies) may need to reflect the extent to which AI recommendations or analyses can be relied upon for making critical decisions, such as those related to hiring, performance evaluations, promotions, or even terminations. The legal challenge is to ensure that AI’s role in such decisions is transparent and that there are mechanisms for human oversight and accountability. To comply with applicable employment laws, employers must establish clear guidelines on using AI in decision-making processes.

Wages and Working Hours

Wage Structure Adjustments

Implementing AI in the workplace may have profound implications for wage structures, a development that demands careful legal and practical consideration. As AI and robotics enhance productivity and efficiency, they invariably alter the value and nature of human labor, which in turn should be reflected in wage structures. One of the key legal challenges here is ensuring that wage adjustments due to AI integration are fair and non-discriminatory. For instance, roles that become more technical or supervisory due to AI might warrant higher wages, whereas positions with reduced responsibilities could see wage stagnation or even reductions. This shift necessitates a reevaluation of job classifications and corresponding pay scales to ensure they align with the new realities of AI-enhanced work. Employment laws and regulations may need to address how employers can implement wage changes without discriminating against certain groups of employees.

The changing wage structures due to AI and automation also highlight the need for policies that support ongoing skill development. As the value of specific skills increases and others decrease, there is a legal and practical imperative for employers to facilitate and potentially finance the upskilling of their workforce. Doing so could both aid employees in adapting to new roles or enhanced responsibilities and help mitigate the broader societal impacts of technological displacement. Legislation may increasingly focus on incentivizing or mandating employer-led training initiatives, ensuring the workforce can transition smoothly in an AI-driven economy. New wage models may develop where compensation is linked not just to output or hours worked, but also to ongoing skill development and adaptation in the face of rapid technological change.

Working Hours and Overtime

AI will also impact working hours and overtime regulations. One of the primary legal challenges in this realm is defining and regulating working hours in jobs where AI tools significantly increase productivity. But it may also further blur the lines between traditional work hours and overtime for many roles, as these technologies can enable continuous operation beyond the standard workday. This raises questions about fairly compensating employees who oversee, maintain, or interact with AI systems outside of regular working hours (or who have no fixed hours). Employment law must evolve to address these new scenarios, potentially requiring updates to overtime regulations to ensure that employees are justly compensated for the time they engage with or oversee AI-driven processes, even if the physical effort or traditional work hours are reduced, without penalizing employers with further expense due to overtime obligations.

In this respect, using artificial intelligence presents an opportunity to rethink the balance between work and personal life. There’s potential for these technologies to reduce the need for overtime by increasing efficiency during regular working hours. However, this benefit must be balanced against the risk of infringing on employees’ personal time. Employment law can play a critical role here, setting boundaries to protect employees from being constantly “on call” due to the pervasive nature of AI technologies. Regulations may be implemented to establish guidelines on the right to disconnect, limiting employers’ flexibility in deploying both their staff and technological resources.

AI Bias and Discrimination

The deployment of artificial intelligence in employment processes, such as recruiting, hiring, and promotions, has introduced complex challenges regarding bias and discrimination. Despite the objective façade of AI systems, they are vulnerable to ingraining and perpetuating biases in their training data or algorithms. This inadvertent bias can lead to discriminatory practices in employment decisions, raising significant legal concerns under existing employment discrimination laws. For instance, if an AI hiring tool disproportionately screens out candidates from a particular demographic group, it could violate equal employment opportunity laws. Legal scrutiny increasingly focuses on how employers can best ensure their AI tools aren’t biased in favor of specific discriminatory outcomes. This requires a proactive approach in regularly auditing and reviewing AI systems for fairness and bias and an inevitable application of employment laws that hold employers accountable for the discriminatory impacts of their AI tools, intentional or not.

Employment laws will likely evolve to include guidelines and standards for developing and using AI in employment practices. This could involve mandating transparency in AI decision-making processes, requiring employers to disclose the use of AI in their employment decisions, and allowing candidates and employees to challenge decisions they believe were influenced by biased AI.

Accordingly, there is an emerging need for collaboration between technologists, legal experts, and policymakers to address the issue of AI bias in employment. Developing AI that is both effective and unbiased requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining technical expertise with an understanding of social and legal implications. Future legal requirements might encourage or even demand this collaborative approach in developing and deploying AI systems in employment contexts. These frameworks could also promote ongoing education and training for employers and HR professionals about the risks and responsibilities of using AI in employment decisions.

Laws and regulations may require rigorous testing for bias before AI systems can be implemented in critical employment processes like hiring, promotions, or terminations. Continuous monitoring and auditing of these systems will be expected in order to ensure they remain unbiased over time.

Safety in AI-Integrated Workplaces

Environments where humans and AI systems, including robots, coexist and collaborate pose new safety challenges. For instance, AI-driven machinery and robotic systems can operate with different dynamics than traditional machinery, requiring updated safety protocols and training. Laws may evolve to ensure that these new technologies are implemented in a way that prioritizes employee safety. Employers will be responsible for ensuring that their workforce is adequately trained to interact safely with AI systems and that all necessary precautions are taken to prevent accidents and injuries.

Thus far, the unpredictability of AI and automated systems poses a significant challenge in maintaining workplace safety. Unlike traditional machinery, AI-driven systems can learn and adapt over time, potentially leading to unforeseen operational behaviors. This requires a dynamic approach to safety management, where safety measures are regularly reviewed and updated in response to changes in the AI system’s behavior or capabilities.

The psychological safety of employees working with AI is also an important consideration. Introducing AI in the workplace can create anxiety and stress among employees, particularly if they are concerned about job security or are unaccustomed to interacting with advanced technology. Employers may need to provide counseling services, offer training programs to build familiarity and comfort with AI technologies, and create channels for employees to express their concerns and feedback about AI integration.

The remote and often isolated working conditions that AI-enabled technologies facilitate pose additional mental health challenges. Ensuring employees working remotely with AI tools have access to the same mental health and well-being resources as in-office employees is essential.

Collective Bargaining in the AI Era

The rise of AI in the workplace presents new challenges and dynamics in collective bargaining. As AI continues to change the nature of work, collective bargaining may also need to evolve. One of the primary concerns is the impact of AI on job roles and employment terms. Unions are increasingly seeking to negotiate aspects of AI implementation, such as retraining programs, job reclassification, and the potential displacement of workers. Employers should engage in more complex and forward-looking negotiations, taking into account the long-term implications of AI on the workforce.

The introduction of AI in the workplace opens up new areas for negotiation between employers and unions. Issues such as data privacy, surveillance, and the use of AI in employee monitoring and performance evaluations are becoming increasingly relevant. Unions will likely advocate for strict guidelines and limitations on how employers can use AI to monitor and evaluate workers. Labor and employment laws and regulations may begin to address these emerging concerns by establishing new boundaries and protections regarding the use of AI in employee monitoring and evaluation. This could include legal requirements for transparency, consent, and limits on the scope and use of AI-driven employee data collection.

Employee Rights and AI Supervision

The increasing use of AI for supervisory functions in the workplace raises essential considerations regarding employee relations. AI systems, capable of monitoring performance, managing tasks, or even making disciplinary decisions, present a new frontier where the traditional boundaries of supervision are being redefined.

One primary concern is how AI can be involved in decision-making processes that affect employees’ careers, such as evaluations, promotions, or terminations. Employment laws will increasingly address the transparency and fairness of AI-driven decisions, ensuring that employees have the right to understand how decisions are made and to appeal against decisions that they believe are unjust.

Another aspect that will draw attention is the impact of AI supervision on workplace privacy and autonomy. AI systems used for monitoring employee performance or behavior can be seen as infringing on personal privacy, leading to a work environment perceived as intrusive and controlling. This not only raises legal concerns about privacy rights, but also has implications for employee morale and trust.

Finally, using AI in supervision requires reevaluating the legal definition of “supervisor” and the associated responsibilities and liabilities. Traditionally, supervisors are individuals who carry certain legal duties, including compliance with labor laws and workplace regulations. When AI systems take on supervisory roles, it raises the question of accountability, particularly when AI-driven decisions lead to legal disputes or infringements of employee rights. Employment law will develop to determine liability in cases where AI is involved in supervision, potentially holding employers accountable for the actions of their AI systems. Furthermore, this shift calls for training and education for employees and human supervisors on interacting with and responding to AI in supervisory roles, ensuring legally compliant integration of AI into the fabric of workplace management.

Making AI Work

Workplace AI heralds a transformative era in employment law. The legal landscape will evolve in response to technological advancements. But it’s never clear how well the laws will keep up with the realities of the workforce.

This transition requires a delicate balance between embracing AI’s efficiencies and preserving the workforce’s rights and well-being. Policymakers, legal experts, and business leaders are crucial in navigating this transition. Collaborative efforts are necessary to develop comprehensive legal standards and guidelines that cater to the nuances of AI in the workplace. Continuous dialogue between these stakeholders, with input from employees and unions, will be vital in shaping forward-looking laws grounded in the reality of the workplace. It’s not just about mitigating the challenges; it’s also about leveraging the opportunities AI presents to create a more dynamic workforce.

Employers, employees, and legal professionals must remain vigilant and adaptable, ready to respond to the ever-evolving relationship between AI, automation, and employment law. By doing so, we can facilitate the integration of AI into our workplaces not as a disruptive force, but as a harmonious and beneficial evolution. The journey ahead is complex, but with thoughtful and concerted efforts, the legal landscape can reasonably accommodate AI in the world of work.

For more employment law analysis and updates, sign up for the Horton Management Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.