Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC reiterates its understanding that, given the pervasive potential of AI and new emerging technologies, an approach aimed at avoiding negative outcomes for workers as a result of using these technologies is needed. Legislative initiatives should address gaps in the protection of workers’ rights in the workplace [1] and OSH provisions should be adapted to the new challenges posed by AI and ensure that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions.

The EESC reiterates its understanding that, given the pervasive potential of AI and new emerging technologies, an approach aimed at avoiding negative outcomes for workers as a result of using these technologies is needed. Where necessary, appropriate initiatives should address proven gaps in the protection of workers’ rights in the workplace and OSH provisions should be applied to the new challenges posed by AI and it should be ensured that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions as described in the 2020 Framework Agreement on Digitalisation .

In favour:

88

Against:

130

Abstention:

10

Section opinion

Amendment

The new risks identified by the ERO include labour market challenges with an impact on OSH, in particular:

The ERO foresight study[1] listed some challenges that are likely to be present – although their extent and impact may vary – in the four scenarios that were defined for the purpose of the study and which could have an impact on OSH, in particular:

In favour:

91

Against:

132

Abstention:

8

Section opinion

Amendment

Women account for only 33 % of technology jobs and 8 % of management positions. This means that gender stereotypes need to be addressed, as do the challenges that women face in male-dominated working environments; these include harassment and lack of access to finance.

Women account for only 33 % of technology jobs and 8 % of management positions. According to the McKinsey article[1] women occupy only 22 % of all tech roles across European companies and it identifies two major drop-off points in the percentage of women in STEM: during the transition from primary and secondary education to university, when it drops 18 %, and during the transition from university to the workforce, when it drops another 15 %. This means that gender stereotypes and the different challenges linked to increasing the share of women in these jobs and positions need to be addressed.

In favour:

100

Against:

128

Abstention:

12

Section opinion

Amendment

When workers do not know that they are interacting with AI systems , it may be unclear whether such tools improve human performance or encourage over - reliance on automated suggestions . In such cases , opportunities are also limited for employee involvement and for negotiations with their representatives on the introduction of AI[1] .

According to a Eurofound report[1] that looked into case studies in three different companies, contrary to expectations, technology adoption did not increase work intensity in any of the three establishments. As regards the level of autonomy on the shop floor , the results varied[2]. The report also states that ‘While it is recognised that new digital technologies have the potential to improve productivity, efficiency and accuracy, there are mounting concerns about negative side effects of new and emerging technologies for work and employment if they are not designed, developed and used in the workplace ethically’[3].

In favour:

105

Against:

131

Abstention:

6

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC considers its recommendation that legislation should address the gaps in the protection of workers’ rights at work and ensure that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions also to be applicable in the context of preventing OSH risks; it also considers that existing legal provisions relevant to the use of AI in the workplace should be backed up by explicit guidance concerning existing legislation[1].

With a view to effectively supporting uptake of AI, in particular in SMEs, the EESC considers that legislation and guidance should be applied and enforced efficiently to ensure the protection of workers’ rights at work and that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions while avoiding at all costs the introduction of additional and sometimes contradictory requirements as well as multiple reporting that leads to confusion. This is also to be applicable in the context of preventing OSH risks.

In favour:

101

Against:

140

Abstention:

11

Section opinion

Amendment

It reaffirms the proposal that the Commission launch legislative initiatives on mental health at work and on the prevention of psychosocial risks at work [1], and stresses the need to broaden the concept of OSH in order to adequately encompass well-being and psychosocial risk management .

It reaffirms its support for the Commission to launch a non- legislative initiative on mental health at work and on the prevention of psychosocial risks at work in accordance with the Strategic Framework on OSH 2021-2027[1] .

In favour:

107

Against:

132

Abstention:

10

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC repeats its recommendation that it be mandatory for all high-risk AI systems – including some of those applying to work – to be subject to conformity assessments carried out by third parties[1].

The EESC reiterates that high-risk AI systems – including some of those applying to work – are subject to conformity assessments carried out by third parties or internally [1].

In favour:

102

Against:

137

Abstention:

11

Section opinion

Amendment

Using AI technology in human resources management can be detrimental to women and other groups who often face discrimination when AI tools are used that are based on historical practices and data. On the other hand, AI technology can be used to analyse gender imbalances and discrimination.

If not done in accordance with the applicable rules, using AI technology in human resources management can be detrimental to women and other groups who may face discrimination when AI tools are used that are based on historical practices and data. On the other hand, AI technology can be used to analyse gender imbalances and discrimination.

In favour:

110

Against:

137

Abstention:

5

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC reiterates its recommendation that a study be carried out as soon as possible , involving the Commission , experts and social partners , to find the best solution for self-employed workers to have a safe and healthy work environment[1] .

The EESC notes that the 2003 Council recommendation [1] states in its recitals that as a general rule , self-employed are not covered by the Community Directives on health and safety at work , in particular Framework Directive 89/391/EEC and are therefore not covered by OSH legislation in certain Member States. The Council recommends that Member States promote, in the context of their policies on preventing occupational accidents and diseases, the safety and health of self-employed workers , while taking account of the special risks existing in specific sectors and the specific nature of the relationship between contracting undertakings and self-employed workers .

In favour:

110

Against:

140

Abstention:

4

Section opinion

Amendment

Given that digital transition implies increased productivity and more efficient work processes, the EESC recommends that the Council, Commission and social partners monitor this process and adopt legislative and negotiated measures to ensure human control over work and the preservation of humane ways of working.

Given that digital transition implies increased productivity and more efficient work processes, the EESC recommends that the Council, Commission and social partners monitor this process and support and enable digital developments while at the same time the Framework Directive’s (89/391/EEC) risk-based approach be applied to prevent widely recognised OSH risks that could arise from digital developments. The EESC recommends collection of information on different legislative and negotiated measures to ensure human control over work and the preservation of humane ways of working.

In favour:

103

Against:

136

Abstention:

7

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC is concerned about the increased OSH risks resulting from separation of work from a physical work station . It believes that responsibility for ensuring compliance with ergonomic standards and the provision of the right work equipment lies with employers and should continue to do so in the context of new forms of work , applying the same standards as for conventional work . It remains convinced that the 2002 European framework agreement does not address the new challenges posed by remote working and it therefore underlines its recommendation that new guidelines be developed, paying particular attention to the prevention of psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal disorders[1].

The EESC notes that when teleworking some workers might spend time in unconventional workstations (at home, in public spaces not specifically designed for work , etc . ) that might not meet ergonomic standards . The EESC stresses that the employer has overall responsibility for assessing and preventing OSH risks, whether the worker is in the workplace or working remotely on the basis of an agreement between the parties . However, this poses a challenge when the worker is working from home or another place where the employer may not have control or access. It remains convinced that the 2002 European framework agreement is still valid to address the new challenges posed by remote working.

In favour:

101

Against:

136

Abstention:

6

Section opinion

Amendment

A Eurofound study of a sample of working conditions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that remote workers are more likely to experience stress factors that can lead to lower levels of physical and mental well-being . With the constant presence of technology, remote workers often find it difficult to ‘disconnect’ from work [1]. Although this is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.

A Eurofound study of a sample of working conditions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that remote workers are more likely to experience stress factors that can lead to lower levels of physical and mental well-being[1]. Although this is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.

In favour:

106

Against:

138

Abstention:

2

Section opinion

Amendment

The right to disconnect is not a panacea. The EESC believes that regulation of the right to disconnect should be linked to measures that promote a culture of flexibility and autonomy among employers and workers, creating resources and support for remote workers and encouraging a healthy balance between personal, family and professional life. It calls on the Commission to free up resources to help achieve this objective.

In favour:

108

Against:

135

Abstention:

5

Section opinion

Amendment

Digitalisation opens up opportunities and creates challenges at multiple levels; it can eliminate or reduce current risks, alter existing risks and pose new risks that need to be managed. This requires regulatory vigilance and, where necessary , the adoption of legal and negotiated measures.

Digitalisation opens up opportunities and creates challenges at multiple levels; it can eliminate or reduce current risks, alter existing risks and pose new risks that need to be managed. This requires regulatory vigilance, implementation and proper application of the existing regulatory framework and can lead to the need to assess whether legal and /or additional negotiated measures are needed .

In favour:

107

Against:

136

Abstention:

4

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC underlines the need to take action at the right level to ensure that workers have the digital skills needed for the modern labour market. This is important to prevent the risk of deskilling , with the loss of workers’ autonomy, the loss of their ability to carry out professional tasks , and the risk of them being subjected to algorithm -based and AI - based labour management systems .

The EESC underlines the need to take action at the right level to ensure that workers have the digital skills needed for the modern labour market. This is important to prevent the risk of deskilling and the loss of workers’ ability to carry out professional tasks . Widespread deployment of AI will also benefit the ability of the managers and workers to improve OSH by strengthening unbiased and evidence -based risk assessment, targeted OSH inspections and indeed help better identify issues (including psychosocial risks) where interventions are required. This includes better prevention of workplace accidents[1]. At the same time there are fears and concerns linked to more widespread use of AI in the world of work. These include, for instance, work intensification leading to increased stress, increased monitoring and control, lack of human oversight, loss of autonomy and acquired skills becoming quickly obsolete.

In favour:

109

Against:

135

Abstention:

3

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC recommends that the EU and MSs adopt policies that guarantee all workers, especially e-platform workers , lifelong training tailored to digital transition, human control over algorithms , and information and consultation rights on the use of AI in work management .

The EESC recommends that the EU , MSs and social partners work towards ensuring that all workers, including e-platform workers (those who are employees) have access to effective and quality training for upskilling and reskilling purposes which is tailored to meet the challenges of the digital transition . This means providing access to relevant training that responds to the needs of employers and workers , in particular to help them make the best possible use of the digital technologies introduced. This is also important to ensure that the development , deployment and use of AI always follows the ‘human in command’ principle .

In favour:

108

Against:

126

Abstention:

7

Section opinion

Amendment

It draws the attention of the Commission, Council and social partners to the need to adapt labour regulations in line with the risks of job insecurity and precariousness resulting from business models in sectors where digitalisation is already advanced, which may extend to the whole economy, and where the abuse of self-employment, short-term hiring and the absence of career prospects are common.

In favour:

99

Against:

132

Abstention:

5

Section opinion

Amendment

It deems it necessary to increase the capacity to monitor, collect , compare and analyse data in order to understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes taking place in OSH, and it recommends that the EU and MSs adopt appropriate provisions.

It deems it necessary to increase the capacity to monitor, collect and analyse comparable data in order to understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes taking place in OSH, and it recommends that the EU and MSs support the relevant agencies in their work based on appropriate provisions.

In favour:

108

Against:

136

Abstention:

4

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC is concerned about the privacy, ownership and security of data collected in the context of work and, noting that the EU already ensures a high level of protection , recommends that the Commission, Council and European Parliament adopt legislation on this matter at EU level and that this also address the transparency of algorithms. Electronic surveillance increases the risk of cyberbullying.

The EESC notes concerns about the privacy, ownership and security of data collected in the context of work and, noting that the EU already ensures a high level of protection including through the GDPR. It recommends that the existing legislation be properly and effectively implemented and applied, including the provisions of AI Act that address the issue of transparency of algorithms. Electronic surveillance may increase the risk of cyberbullying , which is covered by the Framework Directive .

In favour:

109

Against:

140

Abstention:

1

Section opinion

Amendment

The EESC believes that any form of electronic surveillance of workers that undermines their privacy through intrusive monitoring should be banned in the EU. It also underlines that electronic surveillance contributes to improved health and safety for instance in the field of transport, as well as to unbiased risk assessments on construction sites. Therefore, it recommends monitoring the effectiveness of existing EU and national legal instruments to this end and considering further measures where necessary.

The EESC notes that any form of electronic surveillance of workers that is not carried out in accordance with the applicable rules, for instance by illegally undermining their privacy through intrusive monitoring , is banned in the EU. The EESC notes that applicable rules in the EU already address the issue, for instance in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the provisions in the GDPR regulation (2016/679) on legitimate interest, consent and transparency as well as Article 4 of Directive 2002/14/EC on information and consultation with the requirement for information and consultation on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation . It also underlines that electronic surveillance contributes to improved health and safety for instance in the field of transport, as well as to unbiased risk assessments on construction sites. Therefore, it recommends monitoring the effectiveness of existing EU and national legal instruments to this end and considering further supporting measures where necessary.

In favour:

104

Against:

137

Abstention:

4

Section opinion

Amendment

Given that there are relatively few collective agreements that cover ethical issues relating to the use of AI [1] , the EESC urges the social partners to play an active role in adopting a human-centric approach to AI deployed in a work context. It specifically recommends pushing ahead with negotiations on the proper regulation of AI in the workplace.

According to Eurofound, ‘greater efforts are needed to build the capacity of national social partners to deal effectively with issues arising from the digitalisation of work. The European social partners’ 2020 Framework Agreement on digitalisation is an important instrument for coordinating such efforts and promoting the exchange of information with a view to mainstreaming digital ethics into collective bargaining and social dialogue’ [1] . The EESC urges the social partners to continue to play an active role in adopting a human-centric approach to AI deployed in a work context. It specifically recommends pushing ahead with negotiations at the appropriate level – when deemed necessary by social partners – on addressing AI in the workplace.

In favour:

111

Against:

131

Abstention:

5