US labour unions fight to contain AI disruption
As artificial intelligence threatens to upend entire sectors of the economy, American labour unions are scrambling to protect workers, demand corporate transparency, and rally political support - an uphill battle in a rapidly changing world.
"As laborers, the ability to withhold our labour is one of our only tools to improve our lives," explained Aaron Novik, a key organizer with Amazon's ALU union.
"What happens when that disappears [to AI]? It's a real existential issue," he added.
Automation has already transformed most industries since the 1960s, typically reducing workforce numbers in the process.
But the emergence of advanced 'physical AI' promises a new generation of intelligent robots that won't be limited to repetitive tasks - potentially displacing far more blue-collar workers than ever before.
The threat extends beyond manufacturing.
The CEO of Anthropic, which created Claude as a competitor to ChatGPT, warned last week that generative AI could eliminate half of all low-skilled white-collar jobs, potentially driving unemployment rates up to 10-20%.
"The potential displacement of workers and elimination of jobs is a significant concern not just for our members, but for the public in general," said Peter Finn of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, America's largest union.
The Teamsters have focused their efforts on passing legislation limiting the spread of automation, but face significant political obstacles.
California's governor has twice vetoed bills that would ban autonomous trucks from public roads, despite intense lobbying from the state's hundreds of thousands of union members.
Colorado's governor followed suit last week, and similar battles are playing out in Indiana, Maryland, and other states.
At the federal level, the landscape shifted dramatically with the change in the White House.
Under former president Joe Biden, the Department of Labor issued guidelines encouraging companies to be transparent about AI use, involve workers in strategic decisions, and support employees whose jobs face elimination.
But US President Donald Trump canceled the protections within hours of taking office in January.
"Now it's clear. They want to fully open up AI without the safeguards that are necessary to ensure workers' rights and protections at work," said HeeWon Brindle-Khym of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), which represents workers in the retail sector.
Meanwhile, companies are racing to implement AI technologies, often with poor results.
"By fear of missing out on innovations, there's been a real push (to release AI products)," observed Dan Reynolds of the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
The CWA has taken a proactive approach, publishing a comprehensive guide for members that urges negotiators to include AI provisions in all collective bargaining agreements.
The union is also developing educational toolkits to help workers understand and negotiate around AI implementation.
A handful of unions have successfully negotiated AI protections into their contracts.
Notable examples include agreements with media company Ziff Davis (which owns Mashable) and video game publisher ZeniMax Studios, a Microsoft subsidiary.
The most significant victories belong to two powerful unions: the International Longshoremen's Association, representing dock workers, secured a moratorium on full automation of certain port operations, while the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) won guarantees that actors must be consulted and compensated whenever their AI likeness is created.
These successes remain exceptional, however.
The American labour movement, as a whole, lacks the bargaining power enjoyed by those highly strategic or publicly visible sectors, said Brindle-Khym.
"Smaller contract-by-contract improvements are a long, slow process," she added.
Despite frequent accusations by corporate interests, the unions say their goal is not to halt technological progress entirely.
"Workers are usually not seeking to stop the march of technology," noted Virginia Doellgast, a Cornell University professor specializing in labour relations.
"They just want to have some control."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
an hour ago
- The Irish Sun
I've made £18k in 7 months after losing weight & flogging my old clothes – my little-known site makes reselling easy
ARE you trying to flog your old clothes - but don't seem to be making any money? While most of us have heard of Advertisement 2 The woman started flogging her old clothes online after she lost weight Credit: tiktok/@ 2 In just seven months, Jess had raked in a whopping £18k thanks to this side hustle Credit: tiktok/@ This is what one savvy Brit, TikToker Jess, recently shared online after Jess, who posts under the username @ As none of the old clothes no longer fit her, she decided to sell them online - before realising she had ''the bug for Reselling involves purchasing products from various sources , such as manufacturers, liquidators, individuals and charity shops, and then selling them at a higher price to generate profit. Advertisement read more on money Resellers determine a price that covers their costs, for instance, the purchase price of the product and any shipping costs, and allows them to They then sell these products through various channels, including Amazon, eBay, Etsy and Vinted. ''It started off small and I scaled it from there,'' said Jess who moved from her ''items to charity shops to wholesale''. As well as flogging the goods on Vinted, eBay and Advertisement Most read in Fabulous Exclusive The ''vintage clothing reseller'' explained: ''Whatnot is a live auction selling website. ''They have an app [...] and it's a really, really nice platform with lovely people and lots of sellers, and lots of buyers. I've made £18k on Vinted & a hack means I don't have to hunt for bits I've sold ''What I will do is I will get all my items ready and I will show those items on the screen and then people will bid if they want to buy that item.'' According to Jess, you can start at different prices, such as £1, £3 and £5 - which is ''entirely up to you''. Advertisement The site - where you can also feature the products front-and-center rather than showing your faces - also offers pre-paid shipping labels. Once you've made a sale, slap the label on the box and send it out for delivery. Do I need to pay tax on my side hustle income? MANY people feeling strapped for cash are boosting their bank balance with a side hustle. The good news is, there are plenty of simple ways to earn some additional income - but you need to know the rules. When you're employed the company you work for takes the tax from your earnings and pays HMRC so you don't have to. But anyone earning extra cash, for example from selling things online or dog walking, may have to do it themselves. Stephen Moor, head of employment at law firm Ashfords, said: "Caution should be taken if you're earning an additional income, as this is likely to be taxable. "The side hustle could be treated as taxable trading income, which can include providing services or selling products." You can make a gross income of up to £1,000 a year tax-free via the trading allowance, but over this and you'll usually need to pay tax. Stephen added: "You need to register for a self-assessment at HMRC to ensure you are paying the correct amount of tax. "The applicable tax bands and the amount of tax you need to pay will depend on your income." If you fail to file a tax return you could end up with a surprise bill from HMRC later on asking you to pay the tax you owe - plus extra fees on top. It doesn't have to be just clothing you're tying to cash in from - the sellers flog electronics, collectibles, beauty, live plants, and more. Advertisement Raving about the little-known site, ''The thing I love the most about it is that when I get my stock in, I can show it on the screen [...] and then you buy it. ''I post it out within a couple of days - so it really stops that whole issue of having to store items for a really, really long time.'' While there are plenty of pros, Jess also noted the platform does have its cons, such as the fees. Advertisement Seller fees are as follows: 8% commission on the sold price of an item when it sells 2.9% + 30 cents (24p) payment processing fee for the entire transaction Payment processing applies to the subtotal, tax, and shipping price paid by a buyer for a given order The payment processing fee is not currently applied to any international shipping/taxes. ''But with a lot of reseller websites, there are fees anyway. ''The other cons can be the price points - you might not always get the same prices you would on things like eBay, Depop and Vinted.'' Jess also added under another video that she's ''registered as a sole trader and will pay tax during the self assessment window''. Advertisement
Irish Daily Star
2 hours ago
- Irish Daily Star
Trump commerce boss mocked after humiliating ‘we build bananas' claim in Congress blowup
Howard Lutnick, the Donald Trump-appointed Secretary of Commerce, was humiliated in front of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Thursday when he allegedly told the committee that Americans "build" bananas Howard Lutnick, the Donald Trump -appointed Secretary of Commerce, was humiliated in front of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Thursday when he allegedly told the committee that Americans "build" bananas. The humiliating incident was later posted to X. "What's the tariff on bananas," asked the Pennsylvania representative Madeleine Dean. "Americans, by the way, love bananas. We buy billions of them a year. I love bananas. What's the tariff on bananas?" "The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them," Lunick responded. "And what's that tariff?" Dean asked the secretary who was sitting in a dark suit at the table. Lutnick answered that the tariff was "generally, ten percent." Dean agreed with this point before stating, "Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by eight percent." "As countries do deals with us that will go to zero, as countries do deals with us," Lutnick began before being cut off by Dean. "But the cost is on the American consumer now, and on the businesses, with the confusion now," she said. "Mr. Secretary, I believe you know better," Dean added. "I believe you recognize that a trade deficit is not something to fear. I believe you know that predictability and stability are essential for businesses. I wish you would show that truth to this administration." However, Lutnick was not ready to let the matter drop. "Mr. Chairman, if I make one quick comment to that end, would that be OK?" He added, "There's no uncertainty: if you build in America and produce your product in America, there will be no tariff." "We can't produce bananas in America," Dean said snidely. "The concept of building in America and paying no tariff is very, very clear," he rebuttled. "We cannot build bananas in America," she reiterated. The exchange was the subject to many comments on X. "How does a billionaire (and US Commerce Secretary) not know that we don't grow Bananas here?" one person stated. A second person slammed the billionaire as "the biggest idiot" of Trump's administration. "Lutnick is genuinely the biggest idiot in the whole administration," they wrote. "I'm sorry, surely no one can be this stupid and be in a position holding this much power?" "When your tariff logic is so broken that someone has to explain you can't manufacture fruit… it might be time to rethink the whole 'economic strategy' thing," a fourth person chided."You can't out-patriot gravity, or biology. Lutnick is a D******. And he is a billionaire that 'earned every penny' of his billions. Very doubtful." Many people attempted to defend the Trump appointee, stating that the fruit could be grown in Hawaii, Florida, Texas, and California. However, a quick search by the Irish Star found that while yes, the U.S. in fact grows its own bananas, the demand for the fruit is so high, that the country must also rely on outside vendors in order to sustain the demand needed for the stores.
RTÉ News
7 hours ago
- RTÉ News
US Judge blocks Trump ban on foreign students at Harvard
A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked US President Donald Trump from barring US entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programmes at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, US District Judge Allison Burroughs enjoined Mr Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled that Mr Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause "immediate and irreparable injury" before the courts have a chance to review the case. Judge Burroughs last month had blocked Mr Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Mr Trump is violating Judge Burroughs' decision. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school said in the filing. Judge Burroughs' order also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on 23 May against the administration's restriction on international student enrolment at Harvard. Earlier, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard "a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators," claims that the school has previously denied. "Harvard's behaviour has jeopardised the integrity of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions," Ms Jackson said in a statement. Mr Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the US to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Mr Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. President Trump's order also directed the US State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In yesterday's court filing, Harvard said Mr Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. "The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because non citizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States - just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard," the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multifront attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. The university sued after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on 22 May that her department was immediately revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Programme certification, which allows it to enrol foreign students. Ms Noem's action was temporarily blocked almost immediately by Judge Burroughs. On the eve of a hearing before her last week, the department changed course and said it would instead challenge Harvard's certification through a lengthier administrative process. Nonetheless, Judge Burroughs said she planned to issue a longer-term preliminary injunction at Harvard's urging, saying one was necessary to give some protection to Harvard's international students. Wednesday's two-page directive from Mr Trump said Harvard had "demonstrated a history of concerning foreign ties and radicalism," and had "extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries," including China. It said Harvard had seen a "drastic rise in crime in recent years while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus," and had failed to provide sufficient information to the Homeland Security Department about foreign students' "known illegal or dangerous activities." The university's court filing said those claims were unsubstantiated.
