AI is pushing people towards unions and workers' collectives. In my organization, I would say the rate of new people coming is 10x compared to 2 years ago.
You may get legal protection against refusing AI, but you won’t be protected from getting fired for underperforming relative to your peers who use it effectively.
There are protections against firing without giving feedback about performance (PIP), lower performance due to sickness, and demanding performance exceeding scope of the employment contract.
Thankfully, the purported performance benefits of the AI users aren't especially significant irl, and there's good reason to believe it will go negative again soon.
Assuming you're being objectively evaluated and not just ranked on a leaderboard of AI spend......
Can I ask, honestly, how much you've actually tried using these tools irl? Or how much real-world exposure you've had to them in the workplace? If you have and the exposure has been recent vintage models, I'd be really curious to know more about how it's failing there. I've seen both sides (incredible productivity improvements, incredible slop generation, massive net positive for some, net negative for others) at my workplace and I'm really curious what other people have experienced.
Hmmm... so not a neutral assessment and also not likely to have been a random sample of tech workers.
Science is not neutral. It always starts from a specific and partial epistemology and methodology. In this case, the methodology, the Workers' Inquiry, is in the title, so it's not exactly a secret.
While true to some degree, having some notion of the scope of the inquiry (how many people did they ask? what cross-section of the tech industry was involved?) buys a lot of credibility when someone makes a statement like:
The UTAW Tech Workers’ Inquiry outlines how generative AI is changing work across the tech sector
Is it actually across the tech sector or is it what 10 people agreed. I’m very open to the idea of different research methodologies, but broad hard claims without any notion of scope or limitations in the study does not make for good research.
I actually think this could be excellent research if the scope and claims were appropriately narrowed to more accurately reflect what conclusions one can draw from the study.
sjamaan | 5 hours ago
Maybe this will trigger people to unionize. Not likely, but one can hope.
unlobito | 4 hours ago
really proud to say work voted to unionise two weeks ago <3 https://prospect.org.uk/news/prospect-welcomes-recognition-agreement-at-skyscanner-technology-ltd
[ i've been involved as a rep in the pre-ballot period and am helping plan our first annual general meeting ]
chobeat | 5 hours ago
AI is pushing people towards unions and workers' collectives. In my organization, I would say the rate of new people coming is 10x compared to 2 years ago.
anex9d | 3 hours ago
You may get legal protection against refusing AI, but you won’t be protected from getting fired for underperforming relative to your peers who use it effectively.
chobeat | 2 hours ago
In many countries in Europe, you can't be fired for being an underperformer. Not sure about the UK where this research is from.
kornel | an hour ago
What!? This sounds like an urban legend.
There are protections against firing without giving feedback about performance (PIP), lower performance due to sickness, and demanding performance exceeding scope of the employment contract.
adam_d_ruppe | an hour ago
Thankfully, the purported performance benefits of the AI users aren't especially significant irl, and there's good reason to believe it will go negative again soon.
Assuming you're being objectively evaluated and not just ranked on a leaderboard of AI spend......
tonyarkles | an hour ago
Can I ask, honestly, how much you've actually tried using these tools irl? Or how much real-world exposure you've had to them in the workplace? If you have and the exposure has been recent vintage models, I'd be really curious to know more about how it's failing there. I've seen both sides (incredible productivity improvements, incredible slop generation, massive net positive for some, net negative for others) at my workplace and I'm really curious what other people have experienced.
chobeat | 6 hours ago
You beat me to it. I was about to post it. This research is gold.
tonyarkles | 4 hours ago
Something I can't find in this is N. How many people were actually involved in these workshops?
Hmmm... so not a neutral assessment and also not likely to have been a random sample of tech workers.
Ahh.
chobeat | 4 hours ago
Science is not neutral. It always starts from a specific and partial epistemology and methodology. In this case, the methodology, the Workers' Inquiry, is in the title, so it's not exactly a secret.
tonyarkles | 3 hours ago
While true to some degree, having some notion of the scope of the inquiry (how many people did they ask? what cross-section of the tech industry was involved?) buys a lot of credibility when someone makes a statement like:
Is it actually across the tech sector or is it what 10 people agreed. I’m very open to the idea of different research methodologies, but broad hard claims without any notion of scope or limitations in the study does not make for good research.
I actually think this could be excellent research if the scope and claims were appropriately narrowed to more accurately reflect what conclusions one can draw from the study.