EMPL ICM "Human Work in the Digital Age"
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
EMPL European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMarinus Mousiouttas
AI should support human possibilities and not replace human activities. And the workers should participate actively in developing AI. This needs clear communication, management that's transparent, and inclusive policies, which assure that all people who are working independent of their age or their sex or their basis can benefit from this change that is brought about by artificial intelligence. The lifelong learning, the upgrading of skills and specialization should be supported at the same time with various directions given for roles and responsibilities in environments of high risk, such as human surveillance and accountability. These should be at the center of accountability and human responsibility.
We should underline that in the framework of security and health at the job place, we have a basis for action. The employers should assure that the workers are well trained and they know about the use of systems of AI related to their duties, including their moral extensions and consequences. And the risk we have to address and to prevent risk. And we should take into account all the risks arising from digitalization and the new forms of jobs. In this framework, the directive for working people on platforms is a definitive positive step in order to address the challenges related to the new forms of work.
With improving the working conditions for workers on platforms, we're supporting transparency in the management of algorithms and assuring the good categorization of the various jobs. All these can contribute to protecting the rights and the prosperity of workers in the digital economy. The efficient implementation of these things will be definitive, so the technological progress could go hand in hand with social justice. In the wider frame, we have to increase the skills of the workers in the future, and this would be a priority of the presidency, the Cyprus presidency. On March 9, the ESCO Council promoted non legislative initiatives which have as an aim to increase the coordination between economic and working policies and to promote skills for qualitative jobs. Tools show that the guarantee youth guarantee and the report for work and the recommendations for the human capital contribute in supporting training and upskilling, assuring that nobody stays behind in this double transition.
At the same time, the agreement for the revision of the European Fund for Adaptation to Globalization is one of the first under the presidency of Cyprus, increasing the possibility of the EU to be able to react to economic and technological redistributions. It assumes a faster and more efficient support of people who are workers who are in danger of losing their jobs, facilitating their reintegration in the job market or the transition and finding new roles they can play. The Cyprus presidency stressed particularly the consequences of AI on the quality of jobs and on the rights of workers. In the EBSCO Council, the ministers discussed the various ways in which AI can support the qualitative jobs and the rights of workers based on an opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee concerning the tools for strengthening the quality of jobs, including the role of AI and the importance of the social dialogue and collective bargaining. In order to enrich the discussion, the presidency called Mr.
Christoforus Vissaridis, Nobel laureate, to express his opinion. As he said then, the investment to wide general skills is the most efficient strategy, underlining that if we promote some needs to be covered, skills can address the various dangers in the job markets. At the same time, the information and education are very crucial. Various campaigns the EU offers for safe job places of job 2023-2025, healthy jobs in the digital era. This initiative played an important role in showing the chances that are created, the opportunities, and the dangers concerning digitalization, including working through platforms, management through artificial intelligence, the remote and hybrid ways of working, and smart digital systems.
The national contact points, including the job working inspectorate of Cyprus, have transmitted these messages, including them into actions, and they activated interested parties at the national level. Continuing the efforts in this direction is something necessary. Looking at what's going to happen in the future, we see the challenge. Up to 2030, almost 59% of the workers will need to have an updating of their skills, and many workers will continue not to have access to training concerning artificial intelligence. This demands stronger and more inclusive systems for lifelong learning supporting the constant growth at all the stages of the work life.
We need targeted policies in order to address the stress created by jobs in digital environments. We have to promote limits, healthy limits in the digital area, see what the workload is in these jobs, and to assure that technology strengthens and supports and does not load more work on the workers. We have to develop moral ethical frameworks for the use of data for transparency in algorithms and the protection of the privacy of workers. Finally, an important point that we have to recognize is the following. It's important to recognize that this transformation of jobs does not impact all workers in the same way.
Different areas, sections, and demographic groups are facing different levels of danger and opportunities. Our policies have to remain inclusive and just, giving targeted support where there is the greater need and assuring that all can take and use the opportunities created by this digital era. In these efforts, we shouldn't ignore the important role of social dialogue and our social partners. The efficient, tripartite dialogue is a tool in order to envisage the changes needed and create consensus in Cyprus. This approach is a tradition through the years.
It has helped us to address challenges to support and increase the trust between the partners, and to achieve to find balanced solutions for the economy in our society. The future of work is not predestined. It's not formed already. It's something we form actively. If we responsibly use the AI, the AI could become a very powerful tool in order to support the security, the health, and the prosperity at work.
Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, minister, for providing this comprehensive overview of the context and also the initiatives of the Cyprus presidency. Our next speaker is Mrs. Manuela Geleng, Director of Jobs and Skills at the European Commission. We heard last month from Executive Vice President Minsatu that the first stage consultation with social partners regarding the Quality Jobs Act has been concluded. It includes questions related to all issues that will be discussed today, namely algorithmic management and artificial intelligence at work, as well as psychosocial risks as part of occupational safety and health.
So we are very interested to hear how the commission is progressing in its work. Please, Mrs. Gulling, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.
Manuela Geleng
Thank you. It is indeed a particular pleasure to be hosted by this committee, which steered the resolution on digitalization, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic management in the workplace. As stated in its reply sent by Commissioner Šefčovič to President Metsola on March 10, the Commission has carefully assessed the related recommendations in full respect of proportionality, subsidiarity, and better lawmaking principles. It will indeed be an important contribution to our ongoing reflection on these issues. The commission is gathering evidence on the positive and negative impacts of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies in the world of work.
As the chair just mentioned, we are currently consulting the European social partners on the scope and content of the future Quality Jobs Act planned for adoption in Q4 of this year. The aim of the Quality Jobs Act is to pursue a carefully balanced approach, ensuring adequate protection of workers while supporting competitiveness and productivity, especially for small and micro-sized companies. The initiative will take account of the diversity of national systems and will allow space for social partner implementation. On this note, I would like to thank the representatives of national parliaments present here today for sharing their perspectives. As outlined in the Draghi report, a key driver of the productivity gap between the EU and the US has been the different extent of digitalization of our economies.
The Commission is firmly committed to closing this gap while promoting skills and quality jobs. It is important to underline that labor productivity is only one component of overall productivity. We also need well-functioning capital markets, modern trained policies adapted to our geopolitical realities, and management approaches tailored to the demands for smart working, better work-life balance, and professional goals. Looking at the artificial intelligence in the world of work, including when it's used to manage workers, that is algorithmic management, we can see impacts on both the quantity and the quality of jobs. In terms of quantitative impact, existing evidence does not suggest a significant decrease in the aggregate number of jobs.
However, it's clear that certain professions will be more heavily impacted than others. We can expect a significant increase in the demand for specialised AI expertise, fundamental digital competencies, data science knowledge, and other cognitive or interdisciplinary proficiencies. People need to be accompanied in the upcoming transitions. And the Union of Skills Initiative will play a key role in helping workers thrive in AI-driven economies. When it comes to the qualitative dimension, we know that by using these technologies, companies can boost labor productivity and enhance organizational efficiency, becoming more dynamic and competitive.
These technologies can help manage the workload, provide useful real-time feedback, improve jobs and skills matching, allocate tasks more efficiently, optimize workflows, promote consistency and reduce bias and subjectivity in management decision making, provide early warnings, and, in general, workplace health and safety and identify areas for training that are tailored to the workers' needs. However, an improper use of these tools can lead to work intensification with impacts on health and safety, excessive surveillance, a loss of trust, increased psychosocial risks, loss of autonomy and dehumanization of workplaces, increased biases, and discrimination. It is worth recalling that a 2021 survey conducted by the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work found that almost a third, 29%, of EU workers experienced stress, depression or anxiety, either caused or exacerbated by their work. Ultimately, potential EU action on these matters would pursue a twofold aim: to support and enable the take-up of AI at work in line with existing efforts and protect workers from potential risks. We are not starting from scratch here.
The Union A Key already provides significant protections and enablers for the use of digital technologies based on the human-in-control principle. This is no small part thanks to the relentless work of this house. For example, both the Artificial Intelligence Act and the General Data Protection Regulation already established comprehensive horizontal frameworks. The Platform Work Directive is an important milestone, specifically tailored to the challenges and opportunities of platform work. Under EU labor law, workers' representatives must be informed and consulted on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work, organizational, and contractual relations.
The framework directives on safety and health at work cover all occupational risks and lay down the main principles of prevention and protection against them. It applies to all sectors of activity and to all workers. However, several EU legal instruments, including the AI act and the GDPR, do not preclude the union or member states from maintaining or introducing rules which are more favorable to workers in terms of protecting their rights in respect of the use of AI systems by employers. And indeed, several member states have introduced legislation on specific aspects of algorithmic management and artificial intelligence at work, ranging from workplace personal data protection and transparency rules to equality and collective rights. In some member states and sectors, social partners have adopted and applied specific rules in collective agreements.
We must consider the effects of different national and even local approaches versus one potential rulebook at EU level. We all want European companies to grow and be successful. A well-functioning single market with clear and common rules is key to achieving that. We should remember that the absence of EU action is not necessarily beneficial for growth and competitiveness. Such EU action would focus on effective implementation and enforcement of existing EU protections for workers across all member states, providing further clarity on those protections, and, if necessary, would consider targeted complementary measures not covered by the current rules.
To close, let me thank you again and ensure you that the Commission is listening very carefully to the precious input of the European Parliament, of national parliaments, of social partners, of experts, and all stakeholders. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, Mrs. Gehling. And we now will start with the first session, which is entitled Adapting the Digital and a Key to New Forms of Work, The Platform Work Directive and Beyond.
Li Andersson
We will thank the minister at this point. Thank you very much for being here with us. See you again in the committee. And as the title points out, we are going to talk about the opportunities and challenges of digitalization. And this session will take a closer look at the landmark EU legislation, which is currently in the transposition phase, namely the Platform Work Directive, as was already mentioned, which bridges the EU's digital and social key.
In the same spirit, the recent legislative own-initiative resolution of the European Parliament called for the EU to take initiatives for regulating algorithmic management in the workplace, drawing on the provisions of the platform work directive, but extending these to all workers in the union. Executive Vice President, Mensato, during our exchange in the frame of the structured dialogue, said that it is also the intention of the commission to bridge the current gap between the rights of workers in a platform economy and those in traditional workplaces. And this is what our committee hopes to see in the upcoming commission proposal for a Quality Jobs Act. Meanwhile, we see a multiplication of omnibus proposals, including in the digital sphere, which could also compromise workers' rights and relevant safeguards. These are all important issues on which I hope we can all reflect together in this first working session.
Before introducing our first expert speakers, I would like to briefly outline the modalities for taking the floor. On your desks, you will find speaking cards. You can use those to indicate that you wish to take the floor. Please fill out such a card and hand it to the ushers, who will be walking around here gathering the speaking cards. This process is mostly meant for members of national parliaments present here today.
For MEPs, I already have a preliminary list based on a call for speakers. If there are MEPs who are not on the list, but you wish to take the floor spontaneously, please request the floor by raising your hand as we usually do in the committee. As to the timing, I will kindly ask you all to keep your interventions to 1.5 minutes, as shown by the clock on the display, for us to allow a maximum amount of speakers to take the floor. I will try to divide speaking time according to the following formula: two national parliamentarians followed by one MEP, and so on. But if the need arises, we will adapt this formula during the debate.
With this clarification, I pass on the floor to our distinguished speakers, starting with our keynote speaker in this panel, Mr. Nuno Mehta Simoes Takunya, who is Senior Specialist on Labor Market Institutions from the ILO. He was asked to give us a taste of the ILO's ongoing work to develop standards on decent work in the platform economy, as well as any recent findings around issues of digitalization in the workplace, notably algorithmic management. Please, mister Mehra Simos, you have the floor for the next 6 minutes.
Nuno Meira Simões da Cunha
Thank you, madam chair. Dear members of the European Parliament, members of national parliaments, allow me to start, of course, by thanking you for this invitation to discuss such a central topic, of course, for social justice and for decent work. I mean, I will just start by mentioning that when we celebrated 100 years in 2019, yes, we are quite an old organization. I mean, we got a specific mandate from our constituents through the centenary declaration to address the topics, of course, related to the impact of technology in the world of work. I mean, there were mentions of topics like platform work, data protection, the impact on data protection, and we were requested to address those topics.
This is only 7 years ago. There was no mention of AI, which shows a little bit the speed of how things are changing. And today, there's no discussion about the world of work where the topic AI is not part of it. I mean, I would now start, I mean, and, of course, oh, maybe this one. Well, maybe I will not stop because of this.
Nuno Meira Simões da Cunha
Okay. It's moving. I mean, like I said, I mean, it changed, it's changing the way our work is taking place, where work is taking place. And especially for us, a global organization, we really see our technology impact also on the placement. And for instance, we see much more cross-border working taking place.
I mean, myself, I spent a big part of my life in Africa and more recently in Asia, and I could see that often we think that it's more in developed economies where we see this impact. But, actually, it's all around the world, sometimes even more impact on other less developed or developing economies. We see, of course, the impact in terms of digital labor platforms, and I invite you if you go in the street of a place like a capital like Bangkok where I spent a long time of my life, you would see the impact. And now the presence is much bigger, actually, than what we see in Europe. We see, of course, all we know about the impact of remote and hybrid work.
We all face this in our daily life. And, of course, the impact of AI and the use of automated systems based on algorithms. We see how it's blurring the traditional working relationships and creating more challenges for those who are legislating, for those who are deciding on the existence or not of employment relations, not an easy task as we know. And as I mentioned, of course, this also creates challenges in terms of how to regulate work when we have sometimes three parties in three different continents with completely different legislations, regulations, but also capacities to deal with this reality. Then, okay.
Okay. Thank you. I mean, there are two main points, of course. One, and I'm not gonna talk. It was already mentioned earlier the issue of automation and the impact, and I'm not gonna enter it in this panel on this discussion if we have more or less on the impact in terms of jobs.
But the second is the impact of AI-based analytics and algorithms to replace or augment some management functions. For instance, hiring, monitoring, supervising, even training workers, as well as scheduling tasks, hours, and breaks. And both, they have implications in terms of job quantity, but today, I'm here more to talk about job quality, including respect for what in the ILO we call the fundamental principles and rights at work. Next slide, please. In recruitment, and as we mentioned, we can save, obviously, time.
We can save costs, and it can even be probably, in some cases, more effective and replace methods that may not be in the past always effective or have their own bias. They can be used for sourcing, for screening, for interviewing, or background checks, and all this can be done today automatically. I don't know if any one of you had the chance to go through an interview that takes place in this kind of new context, and I can tell you that probably it's not a nice experience for a human being to be having an interview with a machine. Bias risks, and this is, of course, I mean, it's not I'm not saying that these systems are more or less biased, but they are risks, because, of course, they will depend on the training data that is used. And sometimes this training data will reflect existing and historical inequalities, including the underrepresentation of certain groups, which might also create new forms of bias and discrimination, therefore, having the potential impact on the fundamental rights and principles of works.
Second. Next slide, please. Systems, they also have been also deployed to manage, and this is what we often use the terminology of algorithm management. We have it can be through tracking devices on workers' computers, phones, or other machinery, but also wearable technology. Some of these, of course, have the potential to reduce, for instance, the risks in terms of occupational safety and health, the risks of accidents.
But, of course, all this technology recollecting, intensively collecting data also has an impact in terms of risks, in terms of data privacy, data protection. Next slide, please. And I'm gonna try to speed up to stay. I mean, I will probably already move to the next slide then because I think I already covered this one. And, basically, the main message in the ILO, of course, and in the house of social dialogue of drug protestism globally, of course, we believe that it's not.
And even when we were earlier mentioning the estimates of the ILO in terms of the impact of AI in jobs, I mean, the main message is that we don't really know because it will depend on the decisions that we will take. How are we going to regulate? How are we going to define our policies? Then a critical element for us is, of course, the role of social dialogue, even more in such a new topic, even more important to listen to the position of businesses, the position of course of workers, and to allow that these systems and their design, their deployment take into account the views of those who are more directly affected by it. Then the message is, of course, the importance of having robust social dialogue in all the stages of the technology design process, from development to deployment.
Then very quickly, next slide, on the standard setting is the first time the ILO is discussing a standard, a normative, a new normative instrument at global level that focus on the future of work because it was based on a normative gap analysis, and our members decided that there were some gaps in terms of our existing international standards, basically, in terms of cross border relations, algorithm management, and some of the protections, labor protections that are limited to those in employment relationship, and that is the background of the discussion. I mean, the first discussion was last June. Extremely difficult discussion. I imagine if you have 27 members, and I can assume the challenges. Imagine when you have more than eight, a 180, and with very different perspectives, different knowledge, different expertise, different also capacity to implement.
And, of course, this impacts the way they look also at how international standards should be formulated. But we are hopeful that in the end we have a tripartite basis, which means we have employers and workers also in our discussions. And but we are we hope that our second discussion in June will be successful, and we would have a new instrument. In terms, it's quite a principle based. We don't enter the level of details, of course, of national or even European instruments.
But, what we have new in terms of algorithms is basically focus on access to information, transparency, respect for fundamental principles and rights at work, and access to a human review. This is what we have in the draft. It's, of course, not up to the office to anticipate what will be the conclusions. And finally, just the last slide, just inviting you to our if you want to know more about what we are doing and what kind of research and evidence have been produced in the house. We have a new portal where you can find this information. Thank you, and my apologies for slightly exceeding my time.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. We will now delve into the topic, starting with remarks from three members of parliament and two from national parliaments, which will be a bit longer. Starting with Mr. Mark Angel, who is the chair of the Platform Work Directive Monitoring Group, which is set up by this committee for us to be able to follow up on the transposition and implementation of the Platform Work Directive. Mr.
Angel, you have the floor for the next 4 minutes.
Mark Angel
Yes. Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues, dear representatives of national parliaments, and dear experts. As we already heard today, the subject is not abstract, but already a reality reshaping our labor markets, our economies, but also our democracies. And during the last mandate, this employment committee negotiated this landmark piece of legislation. And for the first time, we came up with specific digital rights for workers subject to algorithmic management.
I'm speaking of the platform work directive, which is currently being transposed in the member states. And as the chair just mentioned, this committee set up a monitoring group to follow the implementation of the directive. And as the Chair of this group, I would like to make four important points. First point, the directive and more particularly the chapter on algorithmic management responds to a profound transformation of the labor market, the forefront of which has been the platform sector, a labor force increasingly organized, managed, and evaluated through data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence. And indeed, the directive is the first European attempt to regulate algorithmic management in a comprehensive way.
For the first time, European legislation sets clear boundaries when algorithms are used to assign tasks, monitor performance, or take decisions affecting workers. These systems cannot operate in the shadows. They must be transparent. They must be explainable and understandable. They must never process certain sensitive data.
And crucially, they must remain subject to human oversight and human review. And at the same time, we know that business models of platforms, but also other sectors of the economy, evolve fast and also in view of the pace of technological developments and effective implementation. Also, for that reason, this is a challenge. The second point, we need clear rules, and they are important. Our committee has set up this monitoring group because we all know that rights on paper are not enough.
And it is also the European Parliament's role to look at how legislation we adopt is applied in practice. Member States, as we heard, have until December to adopt and transpose the rules, and we are following closely. We already know from discussions with the commission and relevant experts that several questions have been discussed with member states, including on the interpretation of the limitation of processing, the interpretation of the provisions of information, the interaction with the GDPR, and also the role of intermediaries. As you all probably know, the platform work directive relies heavily on the broader digital ecosystem, and in particular, on data protection rules and the governance of the AI systems. And speaking about the need for clear rules, we are currently worried that at the very moment that this directive needs to be transposed, the commission has come up with proposals which were not accompanied by an impact assessment, the proposal of the so-called digital omnibuses on GDPR and on the AI Act.
And we have not got clear answers yet from the commission, unfortunately, as to the risks identified by experts of blurring the interpretation or even or even weakening digital rights currently safeguarded by the GDPR or obligations incumbent on the AI system providers and deployers. Such rights and obligations, which constitute the foundation on which the platform work directive is built. We will hear a bit more on the AI Act omnibus later, and I presume where the parliament's position tries to remedy some of the most problematic provisions of the Commission's proposals. While the GDPR omnibus is still at a very early stage in the parliamentary process, there is indeed a risk if access to data becomes more restricted. If sensitive data can be processed under broader expectations, if automatic decisions become harder to scrutinize, then transparency becomes theoretical, accountability becomes fragile, and enforcement becomes uncertain.
And another risk I see, I'm running out of time. Just the last risk is that the gap between workers covered by the platform work directive and other workers, this gap will widen. And therefore, the next speaker, Mr. Boulay will talk about this very important initiative report we worked on to make sure that not only platform workers are protected against algorithmic management, but all workers. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And we already heard the presentation of the next speaker, Mr. Anjay Bula, who was the ample rapporteur for our legislative own initiative resolution adopted last December regarding digitalization, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic management. So please, Mr. Boya, the floor is yours for the next four minutes.
Thank you. I will speak Polish.
Andrzej Buła
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and members of national parliaments. Thanks. Thank you very much for this discussion. I'm really happy that we're able to talk about these together, both at European and national level. I think that the challenges on the labour market which we're facing are pan-European, and it's only by harmonization that we're going to be able to sort them out.
Speaker 8
We're facing dynamic changes in the world of work where AI and algorithmic management are not just tools, but they really do shape conditions of employment, monitoring, and also the limits of responsibility have got to be worked out. But we've got to realize that for millions of citizens of the European Union, work is not just a source of income, but it's also a foundation for their families, for dignity, and also an element of social cohesion. That's why the challenge which we're facing is to ensure that the new technologies enhance these values, but without a proper legal framework. What will happen is there will be extra pressure on the workers. There will be a little more uncertainty, and things will be more difficult to control the situation.
Andrzej Buła
And our job as legislators should be to have a partnership between employers and workers, and we should ensure that all parties have feelings of safety and stability. And that's why I took on the role of preparing this report. And the effect of this was to produce 11 key recommendations. And this is to ensure that the European legislative branches will take this task on responsibly, without overlapping and without any extra burden on any particular side. I think that it's absolutely crucial to ensure that there is human supervision of what happens in AI.
And, also, it's got to humans, in the end, have got to take the final decisions, and humans have got to be able to have full sight of the whole process, the whole decision making process. And people have also got to be able to know how AI can impact their professional life, and they've also got to know what the rules are and what kind of responsibilities are in place. And any change has got to take place in consultation with the workers, and also when we look at banned practices. We've got to have very clear boundaries as to how far this can go, and very invasive forms of processing data, such as monitoring workers outside work or processing emotional data, has got to be banned. And health and safety has got to be respected, and their mental and physical health should not be threatened.
The European Parliament feels that a properly planned regulation for the algorithmic management systems is not a threat, but if we have the proper regulations, this will ensure more trust in the system, and it will give more legal certainty. And, there has got to be fairness, and this will mean also the personal satisfaction of those people who are employed.
Li Andersson
And our third speaker from parliament is mister Michael McNamara, is a member of the LIBE Committee and co-rapporteur on the Digital Omnibus on AI and Co-Chair of the IMCO LIBE Working Group on the Implementation and Enforcement of the AI Act. He is, therefore, very well placed to make the link between our discussions and what is going on in relation to the AI Act and the recent Commission proposals touching upon the EU digital acquis. Please, Ms. McNamara, the floor is yours for the next 4 minutes.
Michael McNamara
Thank you very much, President and colleagues. It's a pleasure to join this simple committee for this discussion. The intersection of AI regulation and workers' rights is one of the most consequential questions that we face in this parliament, and indeed, parliaments face across the Western world now, and one that the Liebe Committee has engaged with deeply throughout the omnibus process. The AI omnibus was presented as a simplification exercise, reducing administrative burdens, easing compliance for SMEs, and extending timelines, all of which are, of course, very legitimate aims and goals. But let us be very clear about the context.
The AI Act is not yet fully enforced. Many provisions have been in place, and yet here we are amending it, and all without any impact assessment. Regardless of whether the changes are welcome or not, this is an uncomfortable place for legislators to find ourselves. My approach throughout has been straightforward. Where the omnibus touched on provisions concerning fundamental rights, I look to garner support to limit or curtail any changes that would have weakened safeguards or removed them entirely.
So I wish to focus on three provisions in the AI omnibus where that tension is most acute. Firstly, AI literacy. The original AI act placed a clear obligation on providers and deployers to ensure that their staff had sufficient AI literacy. The commission's omnibus proposal replaced this with a vague encouragement directed at the member states. Parliament has pushed back on this.
Our position restores or seeks at least to restore the obligation on providers and deployers reframed to supporting the improvement of AI literacy rather than guaranteeing any specific outcome, but it is an obligation nonetheless. And we have asked the commission to issue guidance on what that means in practice. This will matter to workers in the workplace. Second, bias detection under article 4a. The Omnibus proposal introduced a new legal basis for processing sensitive personal data, including data relating to health or protected characteristics, to detect incorrect bias in AI systems.
The commission's proposal was broad in scope and set a low bar for when sensitive data could be processed, and by all AI systems, not just high risk systems. Parliament tightened this considerably. We raised the threshold to the strictly necessary. We ensured that where the legal basis is extended beyond high-risk systems, it only applies where biases could harm health and safety, fundamental rights, or lead to discrimination. And we maintained robust safeguards throughout strict access controls, pseudonymization, and deletion once the bias is corrected.
Detecting bias can benefit us in an employment context as AI systems can embed discrimination. However, where sensitive data is processed to address that risk, it must happen under clear and enforceable conditions. Parliament's condition, position delivers that, and we look to hold firm to those demands in the trialogue. Thirdly, I'll the third issue is the registration of high-risk AI systems. The commission proposed to delete the obligation to register AI systems that providers have self-assessed as not being high risk.
Registration matters because it is the practical entry point for supervision and enforcement. Without us, systems remain outside the scope of market surveillance, and where workers are affected by AI systems, they can't identify them; challenging those systems becomes extremely difficult. Parliament rejected this proposed deletion and reinserted the obligation, albeit with a new streamlined process. The council takes a similar position. That consensus is significant, and it should give us confidence that this will be delivered in the trilogues.
The trialogues ahead will be, I think, quite important for how AI is developed in this continent, also the protections that are afforded to workers in that context. The parliament has taken strong positions in all three of these provisions, and I would urge our EMPL colleagues to add their voice in support of maintaining them. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And just a reminder for everyone, especially if you are speaking from paper, to speak slowly enough so the interpreters will have time for the interpretation as well. Now we will hear from members of national parliaments about your experiences regarding adapting the digital and social key to new forms of work. We will start with mister Alberto Mayoral, who is a member of the employment committee from the Spanish congress of deputies. Please, Mister Mayoral, you have the floor for four minutes.
Alberto Mayoral
Good morning. I'll be speaking in Spanish. We have artificial intelligence that could be doing menial jobs so that people can be creating art, that it could be washing dishes or ironing your clothes. Now that's not something I said myself. It was a young European gamer, Joanna Mayawaka.
And I think it gives us an idea of what young people want when they talk about artificial intelligence. They want to make it more human. Now in Spain, we're not starting from nothing. There is a clear philosophy that technology should be there in the service of people, and not the other way around. We want to decide how we impact the labor market and how we can strengthen people's rights and not weaken them.
Speaker 11
We can talk about the rider law, which modified the status of workers, the transparency and use of algorithms and artificial intelligence when it comes to work. This law establishes how workers have to be informed about how these tools work, and what impact they will have on their working conditions. We're also working on a charter of digital rights so that transparency and labor protection can be strengthened, with different initiatives to help workers adapt. Because if we don't have information and we don't have transparency, it's very difficult to make progress in terms of artificial intelligence or learning to live with artificial intelligence. In Spain, the strategy was clear.
Alberto Mayoral
We needed to have fair standards, that would give opportunities to everyone on both sides, the workers and the employers. Now we're aware of this. We wouldn't be having this debate otherwise. There are challenges with artificial intelligence. If we talk about automatization and the impact on jobs, jobs becoming more vulnerable.
Speaker 11
But I'd like to make this point as well. Artificial intelligence can be an opportunity for change. But if we want to make the most of this potential and we want to invest in skills and digital competences for everyone, I think artificial intelligence needs to be used in a responsible way, and companies that use an ethical artificial intelligence in a transparent way should have some kind of a labeling or recognition of this. And there should also be human supervision to make sure there is no discrimination. Social dialogue, consultation with trade unions is very important when using artificial intelligence in the workplace.
Regulation alone is not enough. There has to be effective negotiation within the company between the employers, employees, and trade unions. And I come to my conclusion. I think an example of the algorithm used in artificial intelligence that was recently published by trade unions, it can give guidelines because not everyone is an expert in artificial intelligence to see both the risks and the opportunities when we talk about labor rights. So when talking about this, we're talking about responsibility and education.
I think starting in school, understanding that transparency is important, I think that's very important. We're seeing a real wave of these new technologies. So I think it will really help people learn how to manage this and to see it as an opportunity. The future that we're building here in this debate, in the parliament, in our national parliaments as well. We need to talk about artificial intelligence in terms of rights and opportunities, but also fundamentally, it's about progress for companies, for trade unions, for workers. We want to make sure we have all these opportunities.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next, we will learn more about the experience from France with Missus Grenoy, who is the vice chair of the committee on social affairs from the French Senate. Please, the floor is yours for the next 4 minutes.
Pascale Gruny
Chair, ladies and gentlemen, MEPs, thank you for inviting me. It's always a pleasure to come back here to the European Parliament. I know this place well because I was an MEP. It was a few years ago, but I was here a few weeks ago as well to visit, to talk about some issues related to employment and work. Let me focus on platform workers today.
We've worked on this in the European Affairs Committee of the Senate when the directive was published in December, 2021. The French Senate is following this issue closely. The algorithms that have been developed and used by digital platforms are at the heart of their economic model. This directive makes it possible to deal with imbalances between platform workers and the platforms. It makes these algorithms more transparent.
Some, including workers, think these algorithms are a black box. We have to look at the consequences of algorithmic management on the health of workers. Actually, we have that now. We have a study from ANSES, the French agency for food, environmental, and occupational health and safety, which was published in March 2025. That study has rung the alarm bell about algorithmic management and how it can affect the mental health of workers.
There are also physical risks, accidents, musculoskeletal disorders, and heart problems as well. This same study shows that waiting time isn't paid. The trips and their payment structures aren't very clear, and there are more assessment criteria. And all of that means that the workers are in a very stressful situation. They have to work more to earn more.
There's another study of 1,000 deliverers in Bordeaux and Paris, and it shows that these workers are earning very little, about €3 per hour once you've removed all the costs related to the job. So the equipment, the renting of the account, and then the waiting time isn't included either. Now we're getting a bit away from the issue of algorithms, but I want to talk about subletting or sub-renting of accounts, which is done illegally. Three quarters of those who responded to the study said that they were renting an account and an account illegally, and they have to pay €528 on average for that. We really have to tackle that issue head-on.
It is a new form of modern slavery. Now let's look at what we're doing in legislative terms in France. Since 2016, we have had an approach which strengthens the rights of independent workers on platforms, and it doesn't actually matter what their work status is. In 2021, we established ARPAY, the employment platform social relations agency, which aims to ensure social dialogue between platforms and taxi workers and other deliverers. And we have seen 11 agreements signed, but that's not enough.
France is also going to implement the directive on platform workers. We've established an interministerial work group to do so. We also have three experts who have been named by the government to interview and hear the main stakeholders in the sector, as we prepare the transposition of the text. This same working group will establish conclusions by 2026. You know, I do have questions about whether we'll be able to transpose the directive within the deadline.
We're supposed to do it before or by 12/02/2026. I wonder whether other MPs can talk about the calendar, and whether they think transposition will actually happen. You know, if you're going to transpose, you need time, especially as some of the definitions are quite complex, including the platform and the intermediary definition. Now let's look at the issue of algorithmic management. We're thinking about that, and we're also thinking about data controls and sanctions.
I'm going to now, but I'm very interested in how the provisions of the text are going to be implemented. I'm also interested in hearing from others about their experience, their feedback. But there are many issues we're interested in. You know, we must never forget that human beings must be at the center of all our concerns. As long as I wonder if that's actually happening.
I wonder if that's actually the case. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. We will now move on to the next interventions from members of both the National Parliament and European Parliament for 1.5 minutes each. And I'm starting with Mister Wozniak, committed chair in the Polish Senate.
Jacek Woźniak
Thank you very much. Artificial intelligence is not just a technical matter anymore. It's also ethical. I think, in my opinion, in our opinion, I mean, we have some excellent people working in the sector, and I think it can be a real opportunity when we get the right legislation at a European and a national level. I think it could be really important for those in the IT sector, for professionals, for doctors.
There could be a lot of different applications. We could see that Europe is, we can see that Europe is coming up with new legislative solutions, for example, looking at creating a new Silicon Valley. But when it comes to the labor market, the societal conditions for acceptance of AI is very much linked to concerns with possible unemployment and of certain labor tasks. There's also concerns related to platform work as well. And, sometimes AI can create conditions that aren't really covered by the legislation, creating certain hierarchies, through the algorithms or dependencies on the algorithms.
And it's important to have the right information provided between the platforms and the workers to manage the algorithms properly and potential sanctions. We can't have a system that's completely dependent on artificial intelligence. So having the right implementation, having a broader infrastructure for the legislation in place is very important, something supported by the EU. There's also an issue of data protection. As I said, these risks have to be managed and have to be reflected in workers' rights as well.
There are clear criteria that need to be set out, especially for those who are self-employed working for these platforms. There needs to be the right monitoring and control of the algorithms in place, as well as access to data about how this is managed as well. We're talking about something that really needs investment. Masca, our institution, is looking at all of these matters related to the digital market. And I think, people really want to see this as a useful tool, perhaps doing some of these more meal tasks to provide more opportunities.
91% of people have concerns, though, when it comes to replacing people with machines in general. So there certainly is a lot of concern and worries on the labor market, and we want to try and provide a situation where artificial intelligence provides support to people and doesn't create new stress or uncertainty for them. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Next speaker is Mister Bilius, committee chair in the Lithuanian Seamus, and please stick to the speaking time of one and a half minutes.
Good.
Justas Džiugelis
Morning, ladies and gentlemen. Lithuania has not yet transposed the directive on platform work, but is preparing to do this. In the beginning of last year, first draft amendments were made, then they were discussed in an informal working group. Social partners provided their proposals, then they were sent to the Tripartite Council, and the parliament will discuss them in September. The main provisions concerning the characteristic of the employment relationship.
Speaker 18
Our presumption is that an employment relationship exists when a person working on the platform does not enjoy the following rights: when he has the right of a free choice whether or not to provide the service, to provide the service and to choose the maximum number of services, to decide on the remuneration, to know the price of the service. And these criteria correspond to the characteristic of subordination and control typical of the employment relationship, as well as the case law of the Court of Justice, and are similar to all workers. Secondly, concerning the algorithmic management, we think equal protection should apply to all workers, not only to those who work on platforms. Thirdly, concerning the regulation, we think that sanctions should be the same as for those concerning inappropriate illegal work. So the same sanctions should be applied depending on their scale.
Speaker 15
We should assess professional risk concerning those who are self-employed, as well as speak about measures to mitigate the risk and also inform self-employed what they have to do themselves. And we really hope that this directive will be properly applied so that working conditions and data protection will become better. Thank you for your attention.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next speaker is MEP Abadi Hover from the EPP.
Thank.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
You, Chair. Thank you to all the speakers. This is a technological revolution, which is upending our economy. It's not further down the road. It's already here, and we can't lag behind.
We must keep up. We have two options facing us. One, be afraid of change or understand that this revolution is an opportunity to boost the competitiveness of our businesses, citizens, and workers, lest we forget. We can't be rigid. We can't have a regulatory burden which will hinder growth.
We need to give space to our companies so that they can grow and change. But we mustn't overlook the impact on workers. We need to fully unleash this potential by investing in workers. They need to digitally upskill, not just upskill, but reskill. This is so important if we're going to enable the transition from analog to digital.
That's why we need to have a clear, flexible, and prepared framework for the future, which enables innovation and which improves our business fabric. If we have the right approach, then Europe will show that it has a vision for the future. Thank you.
Speaker 22
I'll speak Portuguese. Good morning, Chair, colleagues. We are facing a major transformation of the labor market, but laws aren't in line with reality. The platforms are operating in a grey zone. They treat workers as bogus self-employed workers.
Speaker 19
All is decided via algorithms. And if, of course, we do have the directive on platform workers, which tries to deal with an imbalance. It's trying to improve things for the workers. But let's not pull the wool over our eyes. This is a political and social issue.
This economic model has many risks, precarity, opacity, and social dumping, precarity because the workers aren't protected, lack of transparency because algorithms take decisions without scrutiny, and then social dumping because if you actually comply with the law, then you're penalized. Let's be clear and ask ourselves a question. Are we going to destroy the European social model, or are we going to actually do something? We have to ask ourselves what kind of economy we want. Do we want to have rights being upheld, or do we want to have a digital economy with no rules?
Speaker 20
We cannot go back to the 19th century. We can only have progress if we have progress accompanied by dignity. Thank you very much.
Good.
GARCIA
Morning. Spain has some useful precedents, but I don't think we have a fully coherent strategy yet when it comes to the challenges of digitalization of work. I think we need more than we've had up to now. We need a predictable, reliable framework, something that's really operative with human controls as well, also effective guarantees for labor rights and competitiveness. As proposed, I think it would be important to have European rights with clear explanations, to ensure that in the future, workers are guaranteed a clear explanation for the automatization of work, something that's reviewed by human controls as well.
We need a psychosocial follow-up in these cases as well. When it comes to AI organizing work or shifts, all of this has to be evaluated by the labor market and psychosocial impact, and also proper representation of workers. I think it's important to have minimum standards in place for a digital disconnection, when we look at availability outside of the normal working day, remote working, and protection from the always on culture. Digital flexibility should not become something where it means the worker is permanently available. When companies use artificial intelligence, we introduce together with the right legislation, with worker representation, having programs in place so that artificial intelligence isn't just in the hands of the technological companies but can be properly understood, audited, and negotiated by those who are actually impacted by it.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next speaker is Missus Bishop, from the SMB.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thanks to all the speakers. Very enlightening, also start up this debate. I think we all understand that AI will not change only our economy and labor markets, but also our societies and how we do politics. And therefore, I think to start with the good news that we managed to do the platform directive, and we established some principles like the human-in-command principle. But also, as we learned yesterday, you cannot govern what you don't know, that we have to have information, consultation, and all the information on how algorithms are programmed, especially when they are used in the world of work here.
But at the same time, we wanted the parliament to have these principles, to have these rules of the platform directive to be applied for all workers. And we would be one step ahead if this had been accepted by the council. Now all our hope is on the Quality Jobs Act. And here, we really have to address and close these gaps that we are doing. And it was mentioned by so many speakers, the speed of this development is making it very complicated for legislators to keep up with it, and therefore, to have this sort of work with principles.
But at the same time, there is no natural rule that omnibuses are only used to deregulate. They could also be used to update legislation. And this is something we have to address, but we always wanted impact assessment-based and really fact-based policies. And this is where we have to push, really. I know that the opposition to the Quality Jobs Act is huge, but we can also see from a national perspective and a European perspective how important it is that we deliver here together as fast as possible.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next is Mrs. Faztikova from the Czech Parliament.
Barbora Fasticova
Thank you very much, and thank you for your contribution because that's actually one takeaway I will bring back to my country, is that you are also working on another proposal, which is very important to have because the algorithmic management does not affect only platform workers, but also entire sectors. However, I just want to say a few points. And first of all, that actually, if we do not take this opportunity, this can be a slide into techno feudalism, which is very dangerous for all of us. However, I just want to say that the Czech Republic, my country, is presenting the platform workers' directive transposition, and they are presenting it proudly as a minimalistic approach, which, in my view, is an extremely missed opportunity and misunderstanding of what's at stake currently. And we have to also understand that algorithmic transparency is a new fundamental human right in the digital age.
Speaker 24
While we hear quite often that platforms argue that algorithms are a trade secret, which is not at all. And lastly, I just want to say that this is a wider debate, because we are in the age when we witness the death of the old social contract. And even surprisingly, some Altman recently suggested that we need to move beyond taxing wages. We must start taxing the digital labor of machines, AI, to fund our society. And lastly, what I want to say, if we will not take this opportunity, we will allow that the fourth industrial revolution that is going on now will return us to the nineteenth century, and this is something what we should not allow.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to hearing more from all of us.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next speaker is Mister Diallo from the Belgian Senate.
Thank.
Diallo
You, chair. Thank you to all the other speakers. So we were presiding over the council when this was adopted, so we played a key role in 2022. Labor law was established with certain rights already. And I think that what we can now see is at stake.
Speaker 28
The key thing at stake is that we've got to have legal clarity. Secondly, we've got to have a balance between social protection and flexibility. And thirdly, we've got to have economic competitiveness. We've got to make sure that we've got guarantees and fairness. And we've also got to have administrative controls.
As far as Belgium is concerned, we've had an agreement between various levels of power. Well, you've got to take into account the regional, federal, and local nature of our country. So I would just finally say that we have got to be proactive. We've got to adapt targeted and proper legislation, because things are really happening at lightning speed. And we've got to, as I said, be proactive so that we've got to incorporate these provisions.
This is a huge challenge for our societies, obviously. And we've got to make sure that people are protected, and we've got to make sure social provisions are protected. Yeah. Yes, to AI, of course. But first of all, humans first, and AI has got to serve the humans.
Pál Szekeres
I'll just give everyone a moment to put their headphones on. I think it's very important that, as well as competitiveness, we also look at the issue of misuse. I think there are four issues here, which I'd like to draw your attention to. So transparency is not where we need it to be. We need artificial intelligence systems to be properly registered.
There's also responsibility and liability. Everyone needs to assume their responsibilities when there are different actors involved. Also, an issue is access. It's important that the workers have options for address. If they feel they have not been treated fairly, they need to be explained why the algorithm worked in a particular way.
And fourthly, we have sensitive data, and it is important that this is dealt with ethically. It's something that you need to be able to control. So it is very important there's real possibility of this being misused, and I think all of this will help to improve competitiveness too.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Nicole Le Peih
So for me, AI is modern slavery, really, à la Charlie Chaplin. Well, look at this. You've got someone, has to, you've got a delivery guy arriving, sent by his platform. He arrives on his bike. He goes up to the 3rd floor where there's a party going on, and young people have ordered pizza.
Now, things are defined more and more frequently by algorithm, and this is society-wide. And at certain, and then what happens when you leave out certain steps? You've only got the algorithm taking control of everything. And basically, what I'm saying is that AI has always got to be in the service of humans, and we've never got to lose control. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And, next, Missus Prieto Serrano from the Spanish Congress.
Prieto Serrano
Good morning. I'm speaking Spanish, as you can tell. Thank you, Chair. The IMF recently said that 40% of jobs will be impacted by AI or already are. This speaks volumes, shows the scale of the problem.
It's a revolution of the labour market. It will change how we work, produce, and be competitive. It does provide new opportunities, but there are also new challenges. We in the People's Party in Spain think that the EU must set out a course, a path. We must have a balance where we are competitive while ensuring cohesion, competing while having protection.
Speaker 33
We have to ensure that our companies and our workers can benefit from this change. We mustn't just regulate or establish standards. It's about skilling people. We must ensure that people have the resources, skills, and knowledge to use this new tech. In Spain, 79% of companies are not yet using AI.
Prieto Serrano
It's because they don't know enough about AI. In Spain, our productive fabric is mostly SMEs. So 98% are SMEs or very small companies, but these SMEs need to have the same opportunities as big companies. Against that backdrop, it's important that the member states have the right budgets, the budgets they need. Otherwise, they won't be able to respond.
There's a lack of budget for training, investment, and support. We can't allow Europe or any member state to have a digital divide. It will affect our production system. We can't have a twin-track system where we have big companies doing well and SMEs doing less well. So this AI is a shared revolution, which must be based on innovation and inclusive growth.
And we have the rider's law in Spain, which admittedly was an important step forward, but it has also led to a number of problems for workers. Spain must avail itself of the transposition of the platform workers' directive so that we can deal with those issues that have come up.
Thank.
Marlena Maląg
Thank you very much for this today's discussion. It's extremely important. It affects work. And I think that everyone here is deeply convinced that the most important thing in the workplace is human capital, and AI should not be a threat. Algorithmic management should not be a process of dehumanizing processes of production.
It's got to aid development. The kind of new threats which are emerging, which have not yet been regulated, require deep thought. Now, for example, the platform directive shows new provisions which should be applied, but this is particularly difficult from member state to member state. This is understandable because, after all, the labor market is in the hands of each individual member state. And any kind of interference from the EU, which encroaches on national sovereignty, is unwelcome. And at the same time, there has been this multiplication of regulations, for example, the right to be offline.
And this is one of the things this kind of thing leads to, legislative mess. And instead of having unification of provisions, and instead of having reinforcement of European norms, I think that we should perhaps go more in the direction of creating proper guidelines. Also, I would like to underscore the fact that not only is AI a challenge, but it is also an opportunity for really making sure that human dignity is respected in the workplace.
In the Romanian Senate.
Speaker 34
Don Anderson. Thank.
You, Miss Anderson. Dear colleagues, thank you for this opportunity to bring my contribution to this paramount debate. Romania has been one of the main providers of labor force by bringing unqualified and unskilled workers to the IT, health, and services sectors. Therefore, the digital transformation impacts us directly. Digitization can bring benefits such as flexibility and elimination of repetitive tasks, but documents for this meeting also highlight major risks: intensifying of work, discrimination, and increase of stress and mental health issues.
As a social democrat, I believe that technology should serve people, not the other way around. Therefore, we need clear rules, transparency, and human surveillance on automatic decisions. The World Directive platform is an important step, but the protection should be extended to all workers regardless of their status or sector. This is not a mere technology. It's a paradigm shift.
Education is key in showing whether we'll reap the benefits or create even further inequalities. If we invest in research and innovation, then technology won't replace humans, but will help humans to become more creative and more competitive. The future belongs to nations that today invest in knowledge. As a member of the parliament, our responsibility is not to regulate the future, but to prepare for the future. My message is a simple one.
Romania supports a fair digital transition that bridges a gap and puts the work equity in the middle of all our laws. Only this way, progress can become a source of progress and not a vulnerability. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chair. I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding. We are talking about algorithmic management, and the big AI companies are aiming to build not algorithms, but brains. Brains that they explicitly declare they are in an irrational race to make as or more intelligent than humans within the next five to fifteen years. They also started building bodies, superhuman bodies, for these brains.
Speaker 39
And they are already building factories, putting trillions in these technologies, publicly declaring that they will create billions of bots and brains in order to displace most of human jobs in the next ten to thirty years. That's what they say. Now we act as this has close to zero probability of happening. Markets investing trillions believe otherwise for a very simple reason. We are at the stage comparable to the time that created a somehow efficient steam engine before it was put into ships, trains, and factories.
Speaker 38
And we act as if we have just new technology. This is wrong. We are at the eve of the most important revolution in human history, and it's urgent that we reframe the way we discuss this issue. Even if the markets in AI companies are totally wrong, we have the precautionary principle, and that demands that we take seriously this threat. Thank you.
Elisabetta Gualmini
Thank you. Thank you, dear chair. So as rapporteur of the platform work directive, I'm very happy with this multilevel kind of debate. So thank you to everybody for that. And I'm very happy that today, we are talking of the impact of AI and algorithms on management on all the categories of workers.
Because in the draft report preceding the directive, actually, there was the idea that the chapter on algorithms management should have been extended to all the workers, not only to digital platforms workers. So this is a good advancement. We are already very late, I think. And it is important that all what we have discussed today will be a concrete chapter in the next directive, so the one on the quality of jobs. Second of all, I think that it is very important as the different speakers have underlined to focus on social dialogue on this kind of, you know, matter, the impact of AI, but also on inter institutional dialogue.
So between national parliaments, the EP, and the European Commission, the Council, because, really, we do not want to be. You know? We do not want a new form of. So we are in favor of technological, digital innovations. But I think that we have to cooperate in order really to build a friendly environment, a human environment for all the workers.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Mr. Lander from the Spanish Senate.
Thank.
Lander
Thank you very much. It's an honor to speak on behalf of the socialist group in the Spanish Senate to talk about an issue that will really be decisive for the present and the future of our society. We're talking about artificial intelligence and labour. We're talking about rights, well-being, and dignity in the workplace. Artificial intelligence opens up opportunities, but also creates uncertainties.
It displaces traditional jobs, redefines the workplace. The digital transmission is not something which is neutral. It's not just one more technological process. And the decisions we make will influence whether this improves people's lives or increases existing inequality. So it is a political decision.
We have the rider law in Spain, which talks about labor rights and calls for greater transparency. And we were also inspired by the European platform legislation. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in eighteen years in Spain, but we need to go further, as well as fulfilling the basic requirements of the directors. We need to make sure this is applied to all workers, not just those in platforms, but those that are affected by algorithm management and artificial intelligence in their work. Thank you.
Salaguero
Chair, MEPs, AI is not the future, it's the present. It's in hospitals, schools, our courts, and our companies. For all those reasons, we should use it, but we have to govern it. Of course, it provides many benefits and can improve public efficiency. It can help diagnose people.
Speaker 43
It can help prevent fraud, and it can help people be more productive. So if we ignore the potential of AI, it would be a strategic error, but we can't turn a blind eye to its risks. We mustn't dehumanize decisions. No algorithm can substitute human decision, especially if we're talking about human freedoms or human rights. And we must not forget that there are prejudices baked into algorithms.
Salaguero
Also, there's a lack of transparency, and sometimes decisions are made which are not even in line with the rule of law. Okay. There are jobs that are potentially going to be phased out, and we have to protect those workers. We must also invest in requalifying workers and digital literacy. We must ensure that AI serves people and not the other way around.
AI can be an extraordinary tool allowing for a great deal of progress, but it will only be the case if we use it responsibly in an ethical manner in line with human democracy and rule of law. Thank you.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair, dear members of the national parliaments. Welcome to the European Parliament. The platform work directive is a milestone when it comes to regulating a world of work where digitalization is fundamentally challenging the rules governing the labour market as we know it. The move fast, break things approach of platforms like Uber meant that platform companies started to race to the bottom based on breaking labor laws and massive surveillance. This trend has had massive repercussions across the labour market.
The platform work directive is an important signal that to do business in Europe means accepting our rules on working conditions and collective bargaining. It also means a first-ever set of rules to deal with algorithms as a boss and ensure transparency, data protection, and human oversight and review. The platform work directive has to be transposed by the member state by the end of the year, as we've been speaking here, and a lot depends on the national implementation. The rules on countering bogus self-employment by introducing a rebuttable presumption of employment leave a lot to the member states. And thank you, many MPs who have been sharing about how the transposition is going in your member states.
And I'm still eager to hear from you, for example, how it will be ensured that it is actually easier for persons performing platform work to challenge the misclassifications. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Mr. Van den Sanden from the Dutch Senate.
Van den Sanden
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. Somewhere in Europe, workers are being evaluated, managed, or dismissed by an algorithm. None of our parliaments decided that was acceptable. None of us was asked. We all face the same structural problem.
Speaker 48
We scrutinize our governments on AI legislation, negotiated here in Brussels. But by the time it reaches us, it is largely settled. The delegated acts that determine which systems are high risk, which stands apply on the shop floor, none of our parliaments can meaningfully review those, let alone amend them. Meanwhile, our workers and our court labor courts look to us for answers we often cannot give because the relevant decisions were taken elsewhere without us and often swiftly and not with full transparency. And that brings me to what I believe is the central question for this room.
Van den Sanden
The current model is one of reaction. National parliaments are informed, consulted after the fact, and expected to transpose. For legislation as consequential and fast-moving as AI, that model is no longer adequate. Would colleagues here support a formal commitment from the commission to involve national parliaments proactively at the earliest stage of AI related legislative trajectories, not through courtesy consultations after a proposal is drafted, but through structured dialogue before its shape is fixed, when our input can still make a real difference. And if the answer is yes, are we prepared to make that request jointly from this room today?
Speaker 47
If you share this concern, we cordially invite you to find us after this session. Let us leave here not with just conclusions, but with a coalition. Thank you.
Thank.
Caratinuto
Thank you so much for welcoming us here. It's really a pleasure to be here. Let me give you a specific example. In Naples, my city, there will be hundreds of cyclists going around delivering. These people do not have any right to health care or holidays. They've got to pay a lot of expenses out of their own pockets.
Speaker 50
And well, who decides when or where they will work, or if they will work tomorrow? It's an algorithm which doesn't speak the language. It only knows their name. There's no trade union that has to respond. This is what's happening now, and it doesn't just concern Naples, but virtually 25% of the workers in Europe are subject to this kind of algorithmic management.
Speaker 52
Now, this platform directive is very important because it has introduced principles which must be defended, because while at least we're trying to defend them, there's someone trying to dismantle them. The digital omnibus has got to be called by its name, and that's why we want to.
have proper.
Caratinuto
Transparency of the algorithms. We've got to have higher European standards. And we have heard that this is all inevitable. Technology has got to be accepted as it is, and we shouldn't put wheels in the spokes of progress. But this is just exploitation.
These people in these workers in Naples have got their backs against the wall. We've got to protect them. This is the foundation of democracy. We've got to make sure that we support this, and I will end by saying we think too much and we feel too little. More than machines, we need humanity.
And that was said by Charlie Chaplin.
Leila Chaibi
Thank you very much. I'm going to speak in French. Thank.
Thank you very much. For all of those who spoke from national parliaments, I particularly welcome the contributions made from Spain. All of the years that we were negotiating the platform workers directive, I mean, the whole process lasted several years. It started in our previous mandate. Spain was really one of our main allies in this fight, and I think it's really, in large part, thanks to Spain that we managed to get this result.
And I'm pleased to see now that there is a consensus on the need to transpose this directive that has to be transposed before December. There is also a consensus in France. Up to now, we had a model of a social dialogue, and I'm pleased that even Mr. Farondeau, the labor minister, is willing to take up this consensus that the directive must be implemented. So we are available, the parliament team, Maher Angel, and the working team on the transposition of the directive, to help you when it comes to transposition. There is chapter three on algorithm management.
Everything is really set out. I don't think much help will necessarily be needed. It should be fairly straightforward, even for countries that haven't started the transposition. I think in a few months, it is doable. And on the chapter on the presumption of salaried employee, I think based on what is in the directive, this element does need to be transposed into national law.
In France, there is, for models, forest workers amongst others. So it really is just a question of copy and paste for this presumption of salaried employee. As I said, we're available to help. There will also be a binding convention in the ILO in June. And when it comes to the legislation on quality jobs, we'll also have algorithm management, and then there'll be rules for all of the workers, not just the platform workers.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you. And the final intervention on my list will be from Missus Petrovicha in the Latvian parliament.
Petrovicha
Thank you, madam chair, colleagues. When talking about platform work in Latvia, this week, on Monday, there was a demonstration of platform workers. At this time, it was taxi drivers who are employed on the platform called Bolt. Their objections were linked to the fact that the driver does not know the price of the journey. He does not know how much he will receive.
He doesn't know the discounts that might be applied. And these discounts are not covered by the platform. They come out of his salary. The system chooses who will be the driver, how much they will be paid, what their rating is, and oftentimes, the accounts of the drivers can be blocked because the system is the boss. It's not the human who decides.
And the decisions taken by the system are not transparent. Oftentimes, they cannot be contested. In Latvia, we don't really have best practice to share with other countries when it comes to algorithmic management at workplaces. We would be really interested to hear the examples of best practice from other countries, may it be company, regional, or national level. We would very much like to know how this all can be improved, and do the algorithmic systems actually improve employment.
We also don't have a legal act on this matter yet, but the experts are working on transposing the Platform Work Directive. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I will now give the floor back to the initial speakers for short final reflections on the debate, for one minute each. I'm sorry about the quite challenging time frame, starting with Mr. Mehra Simões.
Nuno Meira Simões da Cunha
Thank you. I think it was really impressive to listen to you. I mean, to listen, of course, to confirming just what we all knew about the centrality of the topic, but also the importance of European regulation and all the discussion around the directive, but also the transposition to the national legislation. And, but of course, I will close by talking about the importance of global regulation, I mean, for different reasons. One is the same that was valid in 1919, that is ensuring that we can avoid a race to the bottom by impacting on workers' rights, and that was one of the sources of the creation of the ILO and clearly doesn't change because of what kind of technology or process we are talking about.
But also in terms of clarity and certainty for businesses, having global regulations, especially in the time where there are more and more cross border work and presence of businesses, multinationals having legislation will have a positive impact, I believe, on business in terms of certainty. And finally, of course, also in terms of leveling the playing field for competition, something that I didn't hear much today, but I think it's also important not only to think about workers' side, but also in terms of the business side and the importance of clarity and having rules that apply to all. Thank you.
Mark Angel
Yes. Thank you very much. I'm very happy about the consensus, which I hear in this room. This is very important. This also encourages us that in the Quality Jobs Act, we will have a strong chapter on algorithmic management, and that this will be supported also by national parliaments so that we can close this gap that all workers will be as protected as platform workers.
Then I'm also happy to hear that I wanted to inform you that there will be a study by the European Trade Union Institute by Miss Aida Ponce del Castillo on the impact of the digital omnibuses on the platform of directive, but also on all the impact of the work. And I think we had already a taste of it in our monitoring group, and I think I can only recommend you follow that. And I'm happy also to hear our colleague, McNamara, who was the rapporteur on the AI omnibus, on his reflections to really make sure that AI literacy and other provisions, which the commission came up with, that the parliament refuses this. And I hope that we will have an excellent report also on the GDPR omnibus by our European Parliament colleagues, and that we will have support from the national parliaments to make sure that the commission revises their initial copy, and that we will have good trial looks on that. Having said that, I think we have to work together.
I and as national parliamentarians and European parliamentarians, but also with the social partners, but also with the platform providers and to make sure that all this will be human centric and that we this big principle will not be violated. Thank you very much.
Alberto Mayoral
It is a privilege to be here and to see what Europe means. Europe of social protections, providing holidays for workers. And now we're talking about the future, and we're doing this with a sense of consensus. I think, it's really a sense of pride as of being a member of the Spanish senate, hearing different languages, different ideologies, but everybody wants to protect citizens, and that is the strength of Europe. The question is, will artificial intelligence let just a few people progress or allow everybody to progress?
I think artificial intelligence will not substitute rights, but could give more rights. I think productivity and artificial intelligence can help improve salaries and provide more opportunities. And let me just conclude with one last thought. If Europe really wants to provide an example for the rest of the world, when we talk about progress, it's not about being the fastest or being the most innovative. I think it's about being an example of how we can protect all Europeans.
Speaker 54
I think that will be what really differentiates us from the rest of the world. Thank you.
Pascale Gruny
Chair, I want to thank everyone for all you've said. It was truly very important. When I took the floor, it was clear that I was talking about the human being at the heart of all of this. Then there are also the psychological risks, the mental health of young people. These are real concerns.
AI mustn't further exacerbate these problems. We can't sideline AI. Having said that, we can't sideline or forget vulnerable people. Not everyone’s finished their schooling. Not everyone has involved AI in their lives in the same way.
And we mustn't forget about the most vulnerable. That's what we should do as elected officials. We must not forget those who are in the most difficult situations. Let's not forget the ethical side of things and sustainable development and the environment, because water is so important and AI consumes a great deal of water, which is a global issue.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And we will go straight ahead with the second session, which will deal with another very important topic that also has a clear link to what we just discussed. In this session, we'll take a closer look at the digitalization of the workplace and psychosocial risks, their impacts on workers' mental health and well-being, and on tools for addressing them. Our committee is currently working on a known initiative and on legislative own initiative reports with the objective to allow the parliament to request legislative measures ahead of possible upcoming commission action on how to tackle psychosocial risks at work, in the same structured and organized way as other occupational health and safety risks. The Parliament has called in the past for a directive on psychosocial risks and well-being at work, aimed at the efficient prevention of psychosocial risks in the workplace.
And we know that the Commission is currently reflecting on how to address those issues as part of its upcoming proposal for a Quality Jobs Act. There is a slight rearrangement of this session's agenda due to a timing issue for one of our speakers. So our two speakers from national parliaments will intervene after the social partners. That said, we will now begin the session with our keynote speaker, Mr. William Cockburn, Executive Director of the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work, also called EU-OSHA.
So please, Mr. Kochwaren, floor is yours for the next six minutes.
William Cockburn
Dear Chair Lee, thank you very much for the introduction. It's a real pleasure to be back in this committee, supporting its excellent work. It's also a special pleasure to be here in the presence of the national representatives of the Parliament. And I appreciated the reference that minister, Musuta has made to the very successful campaign that EU OSHA concluded last year, Safe and Healthy Work in the Digital Age, to which all of the national focal points contributed significantly. That's the national authorities for health and safety in your countries, and also the social partner network that we have as part of our network.
So thanks to you to them. That campaign was based on many years of research at EU OSHA, desk research, but also survey research, and I'll present some of that to you briefly now. And the first slide that I'm trying to bring up is about the changes that we're detecting through our research. It's no surprise to you perhaps that over the last five years, working from home remote work has more or less doubled. What is particularly interesting from our perspective is that over that period, the proportion of enterprises, employers who are carrying out risk assessments to cover working from home has increased significantly as well.
We've introduced new questions that are meant to give insights into how digitalization is affecting work. And you can see, for example, the proportion of employees including in their risk assessments the use of digital technology or giving training to their workers. The levels could be higher, but we're already monitoring them. Sorry. There seems to be quite a delay.
The last trend there you can see is the increase in migrant workers that we're picking up through the survey as well. But then the use of digital equipment in workplaces, according to our employer survey, is pretty much universal. Depending on the type of technology, it ranges from almost 90% in the case of personal computers down to cobots or interactive robots below 10%. But what we want to highlight is that the proportion of enterprises where this technology is being discussed with the workers has also improved. So, 24% to 35%.
So, the messages are getting through. I think that's a positive message, despite the levels overall perhaps being rather lower than we would like to see. So if we look at what this digital technology is actually being used for, how is it changing work, basically, in four workers, and now I'm moving to the worker survey that we run, say that it is used to automatically allocate tasks, to monitor their performance by third parties, smiley ratings that you've seen, to give automated instructions about work, or to supervise their work or their behavior. And as you can imagine, those percentages are significantly higher for the case of digital platform workers. We asked workers as well about exposure to psychosocial risks.
And you can see here nearly half of all respondents said that they were suffering from severe time pressure or work overload. About one in three say they have poor rewards, or there's poor communication in the workplace. About one in five saying they lack autonomy or they experience violence or verbal abuse at work, and nearly one in ten say that they are suffering from harassment or bullying. So we can see that psychosocial risk factors are quite prevalent in the workplace. When we combined the results with the presence of digital technology in the workplace, again, results from our employer survey, we were able to see that where technology is present, then it is more probable that psychosocial risks are mentioned, again, by the employer.
And the psychosocial risks here are pressure, intensity of work, poor communication, or excessively long hours of work. So we were able to see an association there between the technology and the psychosocial risks present. If we think about the outcomes, what does this mean for workers' health? When we ask workers about work-related health problems, we saw overall fatigue affecting well over 1 in 3, headaches, eye strain, stress, depression, or anxiety all up there affecting about 1 in 3 workers. And those three are clearly associated with psychosocial risks.
In fact, the next highest rated musculoskeletal disorders also have an important component if we think about psychosocial risks. What is it about artificial intelligence in worker management that is driving some of these risks? So we examined the characteristics of AI worker management, which you can see here. Issues such as constant monitoring, reduced autonomy, pressure of work, feelings of isolation and disconnect, reduced interaction, lack of transparency, and few opportunities. And of course, as you know, as I've heard from your comments, many of these are then linked to psychosocial risks and we feel they need special attention.
Now in all of our work, we've also focused on the potential benefits, the opportunities of digitalization. And we can see that they are around increasing efficiency, around better targeting of measures, and about early detection of risks. And all of these are possibilities, whether it's to do with productivity-based AI worker management or whether it's to do with, for example, human resource analytics, more strategic software that we're seeing being used in enterprises. It must be said that we have not seen this particularly widespread in use. I'm running out of time, but I will mention just briefly that AI is also of use in practical risk prevention through smart digital systems, for example, virtual reality, use of drones, wearable devices, sensors that allow workers to be supported in real time.
Here again, we identified as well as opportunities, a number of risks and challenges, maybe overreliance. We heard from you already concerns about data protection and data privacy. In all of our work, in all of our publications, in all of our guidance, we've adhered to and we've highlighted the key pointers for prevention and digitalization. That is a human-centered approach to the design. That is a participative approach to the implementation, and a transparent approach to the operation of digital technology.
Final slide just to highlight to you the campaign that we'll be launching in October this year on mental health at work. Again, we'll be focusing on five different priority areas. Risk assessment of psychosocial risks, harassment, sexual harassment and violence, physical risks, and mental health, the link I mentioned earlier. We'll be taking a sectoral approach for health and social care, which one of you mentioned earlier. And also very importantly, what it is that we can do to facilitate work with mental health problems.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much for this excellent context-setting presentation. And now, we will move on to Mrs. Estelle Keulmans, who is our committee's legislative own initiative rapporteur, who just a few weeks ago published her draft report in view of launching the parliamentary process of negotiations important file. So please, Estelle, the floor is yours for the next four minutes.
Estelle Ceulemans
Thank you, chair. I'll
Speak French, so I'll give you a moment just to put your headsets on. Thank you very much, Mr. Coburn, for your presentation. Psychosocial risks lead to stress, burnout, and often much worse for many workers. Psychosocial risks are a major issue in the workplace today, but it's also an economic issue, since this ties back into the shortages faced across many industries. Psychosocial risks have an effect on an individual level, on a collective level, but also on society as a whole.
And these are issues that are being explicitly tackled increasingly, and it's very important to find concrete solutions to these issues, as you said, in this context of the digital transition. Now these are risks that impact several vulnerable groups, in particular women. The challenges that they face at work are not yet being adequately recognized, and young people are particularly impacted as well. But we really see an impact across the board at every level, and that has an impact on mental health, but also on physical health with an increase in psychosocial disorders, cardiovascular risks, or increased risk of cancer. And this comes at a very high cost.
The workers themselves are the ones mainly covering the cost of psychosocial risks. And the European framework when it comes to health and safety at work, including the framework directive from 1989, does set out some essential parameters and rights for workers, but this is simply not adapted to the reality of psychosocial risk. And things are becoming more complex as we see ways of working becoming more complex, and we see that AI sometimes is monitoring workers without consent. And that means that we need a specific regulatory framework tackling this new state of affairs. Protecting workers in the face of these risks is something that varies too much from one country to another.
And so a European directive would enable us to set out a common pillar to ensure that rights are upheld and guaranteed. I do want to go back to this issue, to the right to switch off. Important work has been done here in this house, and the work on that should be implemented swiftly. Furthermore, and as has just been highlighted, the EMPL committee has decided to get to work on a specific legislative initiative on psychosocial risks, and I'm the rapporteur for that. The first draft was presented on March 19, and that is going to serve as a basis for us to get started on this important issue.
And my ambition is really clear on this first draft. It's about better protection of workers in the face of risks about which we have so much to learn still. We're looking at psychosocial illnesses relating to work, firstly. Then we're looking at collective means to tackle these issues in the workplace. Third, better protection of vulnerable workers, and lastly, regulating new management methods, including the algorithm.
This is about having active staff representatives when it comes to monitoring and following up on risks, and there should also be internal procedures ensuring this is tackled upstream before workers face these risks. Psychosocial risks can be tackled in an effective and systemic manner, and it is my hope that we'll be able to work together swiftly and efficiently on this issue to ensure that we can better protect the mental health of workers. As has been said, the final vote is set to take place on September 2 here in the committee, and I'm very much looking forward to getting to work on this as soon as possible with my colleagues. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next, we will hear from the social partners on the subjects of the digital transition and psychosocial risks. It would be interesting to hear how you view these challenges that have been and are being discussed. What tools and good practices do you have in mind, complementing what we have heard so far? And in particular, the role of social partners in relevant initiatives, whether on national or on EU level.
I will start by giving the floor to Mr. Giulio Romani, who is the Confederal Secretary of the ETUC for the next four minutes.
Giulio Romani
Madam chair, honorable members, and your colleagues, let me begin by thanking you for inviting us to speak here today. We're here to present ETOK's position on digitalization and psychosocial risks at work. Digital technologies and AI are profoundly transforming the world of work at an unprecedented pace. And on the one hand, this makes for a greater opportunity, greater flexibility, and an increase in productivity. But on the other hand, it's also leading to new risks for mental health and the well-being of workers.
Speaker 61
From a trade union perspective, the psychosocial risks linked to digitization are seen not as something emerging. This is now part and parcel of the work today, and it's also got to do with work-life balance, this expectation that one is continually switched on and plugged into work. And all of this has contributed to increasing rates of stress and burnout. Now algorithmic management means that there's even more constant monitoring of workers. There are automated productivity targets set out.
Giulio Romani
And in sectors such as logistics, what we see is that this leads to an increase in stress, fatigue, and also the risk of accidents. Digital systems will reduce the autonomy of workers, since tasks are assigned by algorithms. The evaluation of the output is also assigned to algorithms. And AI systems are monitoring in real time the behavior of workers, and once again, this leads to an increase in pressure on workers. Digitization leads to job insecurity.
Speaker 60
Artificial intelligence is already having a major impact on different industries and on the world of work, and this leads to uncertainty for the future, with a significant negative impact in terms of mental health. So it's very important for us to underscore.
Speaker 60
Lastly, okay. It's important to underscore the impact of surveillance and this lack of transparency, since all too often workers are not aware of how decisions are made, and these are decisions that have an impact on their work and on their jobs as a whole. There are extensive practices of data collection and monitoring, and this increases yet again psychosocial risks and a feeling of not being comfortable at work. And guidelines are simply not enough when it comes to tackling this. That is why the ETUC fully supports the report by the rapporteur, Ms.
Giulio Romani
Kuhlman's, and the ETUC is calling for a more ambitious Europe-wide approach looking at tackling psychosocial risks in the context of digitization. So the clear definition of the responsibilities of employers, including mandatory risk assessment, and bolstering the rights of workers when it comes to information, consultation, and participation. Employers must be faced with a clear legal obligation to tackle psychosocial risks in terms of mental health as well as physical health, with regular evaluations that will take account of the atmosphere of digitization at work. And when it comes to health and safety, furthermore, a gender perspective is absolutely key, and all too often this is left out. Efficient preventive measures must be adopted, looking, for instance, at work-life balance and ensuring that workers are protected against harassment and violence.
And workers ought to have access to specific training courses, with a particular focus on those most vulnerable. We must ensure that the right resources are made available to the relevant authorities to ensure effective protection against potential retaliation. Illnesses that are caused by psychosocial risks must be seen as professional illnesses, and protection and compensation must be provided. Furthermore, clear rules on the use of AI and algorithm management at work must be set out. AI surveillance must be limited, and transparency must be guaranteed.
Employers must be held to assessing the risks linked to the use of AI throughout the process, and clear limits and boundaries must be set out. Suitable training must be provided to workers when it comes to AI in the workplace, and these systems must be comprehensive and transparent. Impact assessments must furthermore be carried out before any systems are implemented, and workers and their representatives must be included from the very inception of AI-related systems at work. And here, social dialogue must stand at the heart of digitization, and it must remain there throughout the process. Algorithms must not be used to adopt disciplinary decisions.
Digitization must not be used to the detriment of workers. It must, on the contrary, be used to improve working conditions. Without these guarantees, this may increase inequality and have a negative impact on the well-being of workers.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Mrs. Isabelin Assure, who is the senior adviser on health and safety issues at Business Europe. Please, the floor is yours for the next 4 minutes.
Isabelle Schömann
Many thanks, Chair, and many thanks for the invitation to be here today to present the viewpoints of Business Europe on this very important topic. First, let me stress two important things from the outset. Firstly, mental health in the workplace is an absolute priority for European employers. And secondly, many employers in Europe already take a positive and proactive approach to tackling these issues, as it's very clear from the research that it also leads to benefits not only for workers but also, of course, for employers, including improvement in productivity, employee engagement, and reduced levels of absenteeism. So for us, supporting a more resilient workforce in turn will also facilitate increased levels of employment and competitiveness in attracting and retaining workers in our companies.
However, from our point of view, there is no one size fits all single solution to solve this very complex issue on how to ensure mental health levels in the workplace are at a high level. And it has furthermore been shown that conditions in various member states necessitate different solutions and approaches to tackling this issue. Different countries have very different solutions with regards to how they have approached this issue, and this was very much exemplified in the commission's 2024 peer review on legislative and enforcement approaches to mental health at work. And a very clear outcome of this peer review done by the commission in 2024 was that the current legislation at EU level is sufficient to address the issue of psychosocial risks in the workplace. In this regard, we also underline that there is solid evidence of potential risks that could affect the mental health of workers.
And where this is discovered, extensive EU legislation is already put in place, including but not limited to many directives that have already been mentioned here today, such as the framework directive on OSH, but also the information and consultation directive, the nondiscrimination directives, the transparent and predictable working directive, the working time directive, work life balance directive, etcetera. It, for us, is very important that we learn from the experiences at the national level on how to deal with this issue. And on this, I want to very clearly underline that strict regulation with regards to psychosocial risks does not always lead to better results. And I think a very clear example in this case is the Belgian example where a very comprehensive and long-standing piece of legislation has already been in place for over 20 years on work-related mental health, and yet Belgium remains the EU member state with the highest rate of burnouts. So, clearly, there is a disconnect here between legislation and the actual improvement of mental health issues in the workplace.
With regards to the legislative own initiative report that is currently being prepared by the rapporteur Kuhlemans, I want to highlight a few key issues from our side. Firstly, it's unfortunate from our understanding that certain essential aspects and perspectives, especially those from the viewpoint of the employer, have been overlooked in the draft report as we see it today. For example, a key psychosocial risk that has been identified in the INL is how heavy a workload can be, and how this should be regulated. In this regard, I would like to underline that what constitutes a heavy workload for some workers does not necessarily constitute a heavy workload for other workers. And there are very clear paradoxes here that have been highlighted by EU agencies, such as Eurofound, for example, which highlight that high flying jobs, which have high levels of autonomy, high levels of pay, also have high levels of satisfaction, but deal with high stress levels, high levels of workload, irregular hours, etcetera.
So there is no clear causal relationship necessarily between high levels of workload, for example, and distress or mental health issues in the workplace. I would also like to emphasize that dealing with mental health at work really needs to look at the workplace perspective and what the employer can control and what the responsibilities of employees are with regards to their own obligations in managing their own workload and well-being. This reflection is very much acknowledged also and underlined by the social partners at the European level themselves in the framework agreement on stress from 2004. And this very clearly states that the diversity of the workforce is an important consideration when tackling problems of work-related stress, and that, very importantly, different individuals can react differently to similar situations, and the same individual can react differently to similar situations at different times in his or her life. This has the support of the social partners at the EU level.
With regards to regulating psychosocial risks, apologies, at EU level, I want to underline that OSH legislation is based on objective and solid scientific evidence. And this is exemplified by the fact that physical or chemical risks, for example, are evidence-based threshold values above which a certain stressor is to be regarded as an occupational risk factor. However, there is currently no trustworthy scientific evidence available that can pinpoint the threshold levels for psychosocial risks, making them very difficult to regulate, especially at the EU level. It's therefore impossible to oversimplify this matter and automatically label certain elements as psychosocial risks, especially when it comes to new forms of work such as, for example, teleworking, automation of tasks, that this automatically generates a lower mental health response. We also regret that the INL at this point in time has not taken into consideration the ongoing work of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work, which is dealing with this topic in particular when it comes to the definitions that have been preliminarily agreed upon within a tripartite setting and with tripartite support.
Lastly, I want to highlight that it's important that an overly complex and administratively heavy process will not address the root causes of occupational psychosocial risks. And this is of particular importance to the SMEs, which, as all of us know, make up the bulk of companies in the EU that simply do not have the resources to follow such an extensive directive that would cause significant additional administrative burdens. I will finish now by saying what we can do at the European level.
Li Andersson
I'm really sorry, but you are three minutes over time. Okay. Apologies. I'm sorry. We need to move on because we have a request for the floor from the members.
So I will now give the floor to the representatives from the national parliaments, starting with the longer interventions of four minutes. First, we'll hear from mister Marco Pawic, who is a member of the Education, Science and Culture Committee from the Croatian Parliament. Please, the floor is yours.
Pavic
Thank you very much, madam chair, dear colleagues. I would like to first start by thanking the Rapporteur for this wonderful report. I speak this not only as a member of Croatian parliament, but as a former minister of labor of Croatia and minister of EU funds during COVID time when we seen the effects of COVID on mental health on our workers. And this is why today more than ever, we need to make a paradigm shift on the labor market from well-being as a benefit to mental health to human rights. And I say this also as vice president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, where we deal with human rights.
I think that's the next level of human rights. This report clearly identifies the growing challenge of psychosocial risk at work. It highlights key risk factors and points out that this risk is responsible for a significant share of lost working days. The report correctly calls for a stronger and more harmonized EU legislative framework, including a dedicated directive. And importantly, emphasize that this risk must be addressed not only at the organization individual level, but also at organization level.
I think that's a very important key point. I would also talk about vulnerable groups because I have worked a lot with vulnerable groups. We have seen all the workers often face isolation and increased health risks, especially with the use of new technologies. Women are disproportionately affected by precarious work and care responsibilities, and young people are exposed to insecurity and high-performance pressure. As highlighted in point 14 of this report, the financial implications of this proposal should be covered by the existing budgetary allocation.
And I think we should concentrate on European social funds. We have wonderful examples in all member states. As a minister of labor, I'm very proud of the scheme called Zageli. Basically, what we've seen is if you have elderly women above 50 years old with lower qualification that are unemployed, they'll stay on benefits until the rest of their lives. And, we made a scheme that is now €760,000,000 investments from the European Social Fund, where we provide jobs for 20,000 women, making day care for 100,000 elderly citizens.
And the feedback from them is that the we received was that the biggest input gain they had was on the mental health. It regained dignity, purpose, and social inclusion. So, thus, we need to fully utilize the upcoming programming 2028, 2034 envelope to support social partners, civil society in this field of piloting solutions for vulnerable groups with digitalization and new technologies at work. Also, artificial intelligence will fundamentally reshape our labor markets. We are entering also a totally new paradigm where the speed and scale of change will require stronger public interventions and adaption to our economic model and rethinking of economic model maybe from scratch.
Without proactive policies, we raise the deepening inequalities and increase psychosocial pressures. And finally, I would like to underline the importance of coaching and mentoring and providing psychosocial support, as is highlighted in point seven of the report. I'm personally also an accredited coach with EMCC standard. We are organizing a world coaching conference in Zagreb in May. And one of the points that we'll also cover is how to make systemic support for organizations and people to deal with mental health in the future.
Today, more than ever, we need a private machine on the labor markets from well-being as a benefit to mental health as human rights. Investing in people, their resilience, and their development is not only social responsibility, a strategic necessity for the European future. We need to utilize future envelope to make strength, importance on this. And I will conclude with, again, thanking you for this report and opportunity to speak in front of you. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much for your intervention. And, next, speaker is mister Adam Gumoa, who is the vice chair of the European Union Affairs Committee of the Polish SEJM. Please, the floor is yours for the next 4 minutes.
Adam Gomoła
Thank you, madam president, distinguished guests, these dear empty colleagues. At the beginning, I will share with you my personal dilemma because I often wonder if the fact that my generation has been named with the last letter of the alphabet, generation Z, is some kind of a bad joke or perhaps is it a prophecy of sorts? Are we Gen Z truly the last generation that can find solutions to problems that might otherwise lead to the collapse of our civilization as we know it? We stand at the crossroads, surely, where technology no longer just assists our work, but begins to redefine our very humanity. Indeed, the problem known as the WhatsApp effect is a strategic threat to our social fabric and manifests in two critical dimensions.
Speaker 65
The first is the total erosion of the boundary between our private and professional lives. We have become a society that is always on display. Digitalization has brought algorithmic management into our offices and homes, often leading to information stress and a state of constant alertness. When your workplace lives in your pocket, the right to disconnect becomes a luxury rather than a standard. We see it in the presented data, and thank you for that.
Adam Gomoła
The pressure of constant connectivity and monitoring of every keystroke create new psychosocial risks that our labor laws are only beginning to grasp. It is not just about being tired. It's about the cognitive load that prevents us from being present for our families, our partners, ourselves. The second dimension is equally troubling. By calling this phenomenon the WhatsApp effect, we are using the name of a brand that is, well, not European.
The high this highlights a glaring need for European information sovereignty. This highlights, we must promote our own business and invest in European innovations. We need alternative sovereign digital tools that are designed with European values at their core, tools that prioritize work-life balance and worker privacy by design, not as an afterthought. If we want to protect our workers, we cannot rely solely on platforms whose business models depend on maximizing engagement at any cost. True digital autonomy means having the courage to build and use our own infrastructure.
Speaker 65
We like to complain, especially in Poland, but let us be honest and repeat what President Metzola said yesterday. The European Union is the entity that has achieved the most in taming digitalization and artificial intelligence among all the organizations in the world. The AI Act is a testament to our leadership. So I do not want to complain today. Instead, I want to encourage you to work even harder and even more boldly.
We have the foundation. Now we need the specific tools and summarizing and concluding, dear colleagues, three specific actions, in my opinion, we need to take. First, research shows that 90%, I repeat, 90% of citizens or you can call them voters because it might be equally important. People oppose replacing humans with algorithms in decisions affecting people. We ensure that this algorithmic management in the workplace is always subject to human oversight and that the criteria for these decisions are fully transparent to the employees.
We need to move beyond guidelines to concrete, enforceable standards across the EU. This includes developing tools that technically prevent the spillover of work into private time, ensuring that offline means unavailable without professional consequences. And the third point, final one, we must launch a dedicated European fund for the development of open source, privacy-centric workplace communication tools. We need some kind of European digital green belt for our workers, a safe space where their data is protected by European law, and their mental health is not a secondary concern to a foreign corporation's profit margin. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much to both of you, and we now move on to the further debate. As it is my job to make sure that all of you will make it in time for your next commitments as well, I would strongly encourage you to stick to the 1.5 minutes speaking time, as I have 16 requests for the floor still in this debate. So starting with Mr. Edson Takuna from the Portuguese Assembly.
Edson Santos
Chair, thank you. Colleagues, the use of AI in the world of work has brought new psychosocial risks. The EU, there is an EU directive covering this matter, but it doesn't mention psychosocial risks. It's more focused on health strategies. So we need to have a uniform approach to mental health in the workplace in the EU.
The parliament has turned to the commission and has asked for a directive on psychosocial risks, but that has not yet emerged. Now we know that psychosocial risks can affect the world of work, and we know that when this happens, it can lead to psychological harm and work-life balance issues. It can also lead to a lack of autonomy and financial issues. All of these issues can be exacerbated by AI. And if you do flag these issues and say that you are suffering from mental health issues, then you can be stigmatized at work.
So we need to come up with instruments that will mitigate these kinds of problems, because these are social and macroeconomic issues. We also need to provide better health care in the member states, so that we can improve productivity. But I think there is some hope. MEPs, we need to regulate this issue. It's a historic matter.
Thank.
GARCIA
Thank you very much, chair. And today, in this committee, we've discussed various factors on the European directive on platforms. We've talked about algorithm management. Looking at the European market, artificial intelligence in employment, where there's already an existing framework, the psychosocial consequences that we have discussed, also the quality jobs act, part of 2026 agenda. I think what is clear is that when it comes to all of these factors, Europe needs to be a leader in incorporating artificial intelligence into work, but taking a human-centered approach.
Technology can help improve productivity, work life balance, and help create quality jobs, and be something that's really useful for the worker. It's not so much about innovation, but avoiding innovation without any kind of rules that can negatively affect workers' rights or put pressure on the worker. AI should be something that is a tool to achieve better quality jobs, more secure, more efficient, more human, not something that simply displaces the risks. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 67
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the speakers for the insightful input. I would like to come back to two different topics. The first one was a cultural shift to turn challenges of always-on mentality into opportunities for work-life balance. As already said, automation offers opportunities for productivity gains, which can be translated in either improved work-life balance and more job satisfaction, or it can be used to justify higher workloads for people and reinforce existing stressors. That is why the purpose and scope are key, which we can, of course, influence via legislative frameworks.
Speaker 68
But also a cultural shift is necessary to normalize including or even blocking in time for personal obligations and priorities in the daily agenda. Having this in mind, I am curious to hear also from the representatives of the national parliaments here present today on what is needed at EU level to enable action at national or local level. Second topic I want to approach was the importance of a sectoral approach. There is no one size fits all solution, as we heard already from one of the speakers. Different sectors often encounter unique PSRs influenced by their specific working conditions, such as high emotional or cognitive demands, long or irregular hours, and interactions with challenging clients, pupils, or customers.
Tailored sectoral measures could include customized risk assessment tools, targeted training programs, and prevention strategies designed specifically for each sector. So how can we achieve implementing a framework that leaves enough flexibility to be relevant for different sectors and contexts, at the same time, offers enough protections for workers? Keeping in mind that one of the current issues is that OSH rules are too generic, with no explicit coverage of individual factors. Thank you.
Speaker 39
The impact of AI on the labor market will not initially come from the job displacement, but from rapid increasing productivity. In many sectors, this will be positive, especially in tradable goods and services. But there is a specific risk we need to understand. In many knowledge professions, demand does not increase simply because services become cheaper. Take the example of lawyers.
If AI makes them 50% more productive, which is already possible, the cost of services such as divorce, for example, may fall. But people do not seek more divorces because they are cheaper. In such cases, high productivity does not lead to higher demand. It leads to lower incomes. This dynamic could affect a significant share of our economy, potentially in the range of 20% to 30% of GDP, particularly in non-tradable knowledge intensive services.
Speaker 38
If unmanaged, it may result in price competition, declining incomes, and the erosion of professional human capital, not through automation but through increase of productivity itself. This is a different kind of disruption, and we need to prepare for it.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next is Mister Okusovich from the Polish Senate.
Speaker 70
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, digitalization isn't just changing the labor market, but also the job-related risks. The European agency in this area has shown that there are more psychological and physical risks. Ways of working will be determined by algorithms, so it's important to have this be more transparent, but it is also a cause of additional stress. And the decisions made by these algorithms are not transparent, so we have to systematically tackle this.
AI systems in the workplace have to be properly monitored to make sure they're not bringing any psychosocial risks with them. Workers need to know how these decisions made by artificial intelligence are reached, especially in cases of redundancies, for example. We need to look at all of these new rules for health in the workplace. Algorithmic management is a risk factor, and I think digitalization could help us shrink this risk as well. We have the right to be offline.
Thank you.
Speaker 74
We cannot get away from the fact that artificial intelligence has an enormous potential for the benefit of companies, but also for laborers in physical situations where those who work in storage can shift heavy loads. We could have air samples analyzed quickly, and make sure that there's no asbestos in the air. We can get away from strains that are flying in the air or might harm those that work in Museo. We know that AI may be a huge help, but it might also create enormous problems for employees. Cockburn, you presented it so well.
Speaker 72
We need data to have these solutions. We know that those workers who are under pressure have a physical consequence of it. They get sick from working that way. So we need to sit down together and find a solution, parliament, companies, and labor organizations. We can do this.
Speaker 73
It's really important that the commission, when they want to write the Quality Jobs Act, is ready to also focus on psychosocial risks and mental well-being. It's important to remember that we need to include the workers to get the best results. There has to be a human at the other end. We cannot have a manager who's an app in the future. This is about mental health for workers in the future.
Thank.
Prieto Serrano
You, chair. I'll speak Spanish. Digitization at work has had a profound impact on how we work. And it does offer a lot of advantages, better work-life balance, flexibility, productivity, but it also leads to new risks, particularly psychosocial risks, and we can't ignore that. In our country, Spain, we have come up with a strategy for health at work, but the law on preventing risks at work dates back to 1995.
It's over 30 years old, and so this law is now obsolete. The employment market is changing at a frenetic pace, and that's been accentuated by digitization. So we can't rely on tools from the past to tackle this. Over the past few years, sick days and periods of sick leave due to problems at work have increased due to stress, exhaustion, and all of this is related to the use of technology. We can't ignore those risks, and that's why it's important to push for a new law on prevention at work.
And we need an EU framework as well, working with staff representatives and business people at every level to get that through. What we need in the EU is effective prevention with tools for businesses, particularly for SMEs. As things stand, they are still unable to identify and manage psychosocial risks arising from digitization. And specific training is also required for workers and for management on the healthy use of technology and digital disconnection. We need to ensure that psychosocial risks are covered as an essential part of that toolkit to prevent and not just a downstream part of events.
Progress cannot happen at the cost of workers' health. Technology needs to be seen as a tool for workers, and so we need to push for an EU framework and also a national one. Artificial intelligence must not be used to boost the talent of workers and must be used to create better quality jobs. In this way, we'll be able to upskill our workers. If we don't protect our workers properly, then we'll be facing a new digital reality, but we will be failing on what truly matters.
Thank you.
Chair,
Rodrigo Cavaleiro
MEPs, MPs, it's good to have this reflection on AI, even if it's challenging. Thank you for everyone's contribution. I'm in the committee on education in the parliament of Portugal, and I'm a teacher. So we know that digital tools are very relevant. And we know that there's so much interpretation around the use of AI.
Speaker 76
We know that children are increasingly using their mobile phones in the classroom and outside the classroom, and that's a debate we have to have. I think we all agree that we need to ensure our young people have the skills they need for the future. They need to be ready for the labor market because there's a lot of technological change and a lot of change linked to AI. Now all of that may seem obvious. We're surrounded by technology, by our phones, and so we, as Europeans, can barely survive without our mobile phones.
Speaker 75
And as I say, no one can avoid technology. We can't swim against that tide. You know, you can't live without your phone anymore. It's like walking around naked in the city. That's how people feel when that happens.
Speaker 76
But a lot of schools aren't prepared for digitalization. A lot of schools aren't ready for these new technologies. But we don't think that children being stuck or sellotaped to their mobile phones is a good thing. We need to have a debate about schools, and we need to raise awareness about moderation, moderate use of technology. This is a debate for teachers, pupils, and parents.
Speaker 75
All of that is so vital. We aren't in favor of bans, though. We're in favor of moderation and regulation. Of course, schools must have their own freedom to make decisions about the use of technology, and so should parents. So this is a very important issue.
It's about freedom for families. And, of course, we should always recognize that families are the backbone of society, but school is very important. We want to have a strong Europe with strong families. But that can only happen if we have free family. Freedom is the fight of our times.
Li Andersson
Thank you. Next speaker, it is Missus MEP Verbrooke from the Patriots.
Thank.
Speaker 79
Thank you very much, madam chair, parliamentarians, colleagues. It's very important to talk about mental health at work with national parliamentarians, as you are directly affected. Mental health at work is degrading. It is important that we move away from this dehumanized management. These are things we cannot contest.
We need to talk about all of these subjects. We need to talk about the pressure from the economic collapse, from the erosion of jobs, things that give workers other options. But I want to talk about farmers in particular. It is Wednesday morning. And since the beginning of the week, two French farmers will have committed suicide.
Speaker 80
How many across the whole of Europe? When we talk about the lack of economic growth, the green deal, free trade, we're not just sacrificing our agriculture. We're sacrificing their mental health as well. It is important to talk about those psychological risks as well. Dear politicians, it is our weakness, our bad choices that mean workers are in more precarious conditions and are exploited by those who profit from these crises.
It's now a question of life and death. Thank you.
Tiziana Beghin
Thank you, Chair, colleagues. I'd like to begin my remarks by talking about something that is not just technical but deeply political, the future of work in the digital age. In the debate on psychosocial risks and AI, I think there's something we're missing. We continue to view technology as a problem, but it's not technology that is the problem. It is disruptive.
Speaker 82
It holds up a mirror to our society. Stress, a lack of boundaries between private life and work life. Well, none of that came about because of AI. Artificial intelligence only makes visible what is already happening. And that should change the way we see things, because the real issue is not just about defending ourselves from technology.
It's about what type of model, how we organize work, what we want that to look like in the digital age. If we accept a model that is rooted solely in performance and oversight, well, the algorithms will make that an implacable model. But if, on the contrary, we choose a model rooted in confidence, in trust, in responsibility, while technology can be a real ally. And the EU here has a clear choice to make, not limiting itself to regulating instruments, but looking at the type of model that we want. This is about improving the quality of work and avoiding falling into a trap, responding to any new problem that arises by being too rigid.
This is about granting real protection. And real protection today looks like building a credible balance between freedom and responsibility. If we're able to strike that balance, then the digital transformation will be an opportunity for growth and quality. And if we don't manage to achieve this, well, that will just be a more sophisticated type of pressure on our workers. Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Missus Skogina Robene from the Latvian Sea.
Mairita Lūse
Yes. Hello. Thank you for the floor. Even though the prevention of psychosocial risks is already regulated in Latvia by the general occupation and safety and health legislation, we still see the different approaches and interpretations of the labour protection law. And in Latvia, we actually have a lot of, like, really good materials on work safety and discrimination, but only 50 out of 500 publications are related to psychosocial risks, but none of them related to psychosocial risks and digitalization.
Speaker 85
And this shows that we can regulate and implement, but it won't work without the general understanding of what the psychosocial risks are and how to recognize them. And I think each EU country here is different in all the levels of this matter. And to conclude, we need more transparency and communication at all levels, including working with our social partners, who are usually a very great help when it comes to labor law and the safety of the employees. Thank you.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Thank you, chair. I had prepared a different speech, but the debate here is a very fertile one and a very interesting one. I have two comments. Hopefully, they will be useful. I listened very carefully, our colleague from Croatia, talking about support through an allowance or a benefit after 50 years of age.
So this shows that a benefit allows a large part of the population to be sidelined. So there is a fear that we will create a proletariat, the Lubben proletariat that is outside all democratic processes, whereas the left proposes continuous integration. The second point that we have to address here is the following. AI, and this is the core of class struggle in our opinion. AI, who does it serve?
Does it serve capital that invests capital earned from the work of the workers? We believe that AI can give us better quality, fewer working hours. But who is going to win? Will the capital gain come from that? Capital in itself cannot gain.
It is only cannot produce. It is only human strength that can produce. Already in 2021, in an opinion where I was the rapporteur, the European Parliament asked for control of AI. Has any progress been made? Thank you.
Thank you.
Lander
Very much, chair. I'd like to start by being very clear. We can't allow digitalization, the use of AI, and algorithm management to regulate the labor market and take away protections from workers. Under the guise of modernization, we can have a new vulnerability to jobs. So we have to look at all the jobs that are related to the management of personnel.
Now that can be useful tools, but what the institutions need to do is to make sure that this efficiency benefits the people. So, first of all, better regulation of remote working. We can't just have declarations of good intentions here. We need things that are monitored and sanctioned. We also need to have better labor protections when it comes to digital work with an agenda perspective as well.
Also, restricting certain algorithms on the labor market, strengthening collective negotiations. I think we need more organization, more collective defense in this area, and also inspection of work and controls. Digitalization is a tool that can help improve people's lives. Organizations that properly look after the mental health of their workers are more human, more productive, and I think this could be an opportunity going forward.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Missus Gruny from the French Senate.
Pascale Gruny
Chair. I'm vice chair of a group on mental suffering at work. So I think it's very important to come up with definitions. What exactly is a burnout? I don't know.
How does it differ from depression? It's very important that we have clear definitions, then we can come up with the right solutions. We have to talk to all levels of management. There are problems with training at university, in the engineering and business schools as well. All of this leads to a lot of suffering for managers and for those who are managed.
We must also not forget work from home, because there were already psychosocial risks in the workplace before COVID, but it's got worse. And prevention is better than cure. You know, if you get ill at work, well, that shouldn't be happening. Now a word or two on AI. This is complex work, and we can't just sit on your laurels.
You know, sometimes at work, you do really difficult work that requires a lot of thinking. And then sometimes, you take a little break. And we have to ensure that AI doesn't exclude that, and that's a risk.
You, Chair.
Maria Zacharia
Ladies and gentlemen, digitalization often does not reduce pressure but becomes a tool of intensification and constant availability, as well as stress and higher risk of accidents. Surveys by the Institute of Work in Greece show that worker relations are transformed, and there is an additional issue of protection of rights. Quality of work must be linked to the rights of workers. And when there are no boundaries between work and life, there is more pressure and burnout. The problem in Greece is becoming more acute when it is combined with a legal framework where, on the one hand, it recognizes the right to disconnect, but on the other hand, it broadens flexibilization and the exceptional work on a sixth day of the work week that is a six day work week.
The cost of production is placed solely upon the worker. This is why the European Union must establish a mandatory framework with full participation of trade unions already in the stage of the design of the legislation. There must be boundaries set in digitization, and there should be effective mechanisms of control and sanctions. Thank you.
Lisborskis
Thank you for the floor. I will use this opportunity to speak my mother tongue. Digitalization at the workplace and AI change the way we work, the way we make decisions, and feel at work. The issue of psychosocial risks is as topical as ever, even more important than technological development as such. Our legislation does seem sufficient.
It asks employers to take care of psychosocial risks of the employees, including workload, etcetera. However, the main challenge remains not the lack of regulation, but its practical application and understanding of it in the workplace. MI, algorithmical HR, we are currently transposing the platform work directive. Our approach is clear. Technologies have to be transparent.
Decisions have to be transparent. A human must always be involved, and employees must have the right to make counterclaims. We must involve civil society, social partners, so that trust can be built and practical solutions can be found. On the EU level, the priority should be not new legislation, but correct and efficient application of the existing regulations and exchange of experience. In this digital age, we have to keep the human at the center.
Thank you.
Li Andersson
Much. I will now give the floor back to our initial speakers. And once again, I have to ask you to limit yourself to one minute for the concluding reflections on the debate, starting with Mr. Gruksemmer.
William Cockburn
Thank you. Really appreciate the very insightful comments that we've heard today. I presented more of the characteristics of design and prevention in AI and digitalization. I'd like briefly to mention the importance of taking a good preventive approach to psychosocial risks, as we've just heard. It's clear that a systematic approach works.
In practice, our research shows that often is not happening, particularly in small enterprises. We need as well awareness-raising. We need effective tools and guidance. We need resources, and we need a joined-up approach, all of that to support particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises. The situation currently in Europe is quite diverse.
I presented to you the average figures. But if we look at the existence of an action plan against stress, that varies between 70 percent in Sweden and 10 percent in Czechia. If we look at the provision to employees, to workers of information and training on psychosocial risks, that varies from 69 percent in Ireland to 25 percent in Greece. And as I was saying before, the stigma, the importance of being able to talk about psychosocial risks is key. And when we ask whether raising such issues would have a negative impact on a person's career, that varied from 68 percent in France to 30 percent in Austria.
So I would recall the campaign that we're starting in October, where we hope to address many of these issues, and we count on your support. Thank you.
Estelle Ceulemans
you. Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to everyone who's taken the floor. This really does shed light on what you're facing in the national sphere, but you can see the red line, the red thread running through this is this concern about the introduction of new technology. And there is a reality. These psychosocial risks are already there.
I'd like to thank the representative of Business Europe. I can see that the world of employers is particularly concerned with this issue. You've underscored that you're losing the best, and so it's time to tackle that. And in particular, when it comes to young people, I'd like to thank our Polish colleague for having said something about Gen Z. Well, Gen Z too, actually, are the ones clamoring for a shift in how work is organized.
So there's work to be done, we're going to work. Because when it comes to new technology, we need to make sure that we're assessing the picture. We've got to look at management within that. But if we want to increase the opportunity that technology represents, that digitalization and AI represent, we need to make sure that we decrease the threats. And for that, we're going to need more transparency, and we're going to need to prevent psychosocial risks.
Thank.
Giulio Romani
you. Well, I too would like to thank all those who've taken the floor before me and who have supported the idea of a robust legislative framework. That is certainly what we want to see when it comes to psychosocial risks. In our view, it may well be that in some situations, legislation simply is not enough. We would actually call for greater oversight, not just legislation.
When there is a situation where you see accidents happening, for instance, at an intersection despite the presence of red lights, well, the solution is not to get rid of the red lights, is it? At this time, I do not think that what we are dealing with are laws that actually increase the risk. On the contrary, where laws are put in place, well, that reflects the risk that already exists. It's not just about how work is organized. It's though it is about that too, and this is all about how we protect our workers, and that's why we need to continue to work on this.
Isabelle Schömann
Many thanks, chair, and I promise this time I will be brief. So, thank you, everyone, especially from the national delegations for sharing your experiences and especially to those who have highlighted the role of social dialogue and social partners in this matter. I think this is really where the crucial difference can be made as effective social dialogue at the appropriate level. We've heard about sectoral differences from many of you, and I especially reach out to the French representative who highlighted the sectoral issues in the agriculture sector. This is very well known and a very serious matter.
And on this, I also would like to say that oftentimes farmers are not only workers but are also employers, are themselves entrepreneurs, and they are indeed facing a lot of difficulties with regards to mental health specifically. So with regards to social partnership at a sectoral level, this is really where we can make a difference. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you so much. And thank you all, dear colleagues, for your participation in this lively and very interesting debate today. Please be reminded that the next meeting of the AI Days will be the joint Inkoliba Working Group on the Implementation and Enforcement of the AI Act. This meeting takes place today at 1 in Spinelli 5E2. And there is also a networking lunch organized in the frame of the AI days from 2:30 to 3:30 in the 2Q Catering area, which is the same building as this one, but on the 2nd floor.
Unfortunately, it will not be possible for at least some members of the EMPL committee, including me, to join the lunch, as we have our own meeting at the same time. Bringing me to my last point, EMPL committee meeting will resume this afternoon at 2:30. I wish all of you a very pleasant stay in Brussels, and safe travels home. I apologize for the tight schedule, but it's also because of respect for the working conditions of our great interpreters. So thank you all in the interpretation booth, also for the work done today.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.