Latest news with #NoRoboBossesAct
The Hill
03-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Managers are using AI to determine raises, promotions, layoffs
(NewsNation) — Artificial intelligence (AI) isn't just changing workflows, it's deciding who moves up and who gets the boot. According to a new Resume Builder survey of 1,342 U.S. managers, 6 in 10 said they use AI tools to make decisions about their direct reports. Even more striking is that most managers who use AI said they've turned to it for high-stakes calls, such as determining raises, promotions and even who to let go. Yet two-thirds of those using AI admitted they haven't received training on how to manage people with it, the survey found. ChatGPT was the most popular tool among AI-using managers, with 53% citing it as their go-to. Nearly 30% said they primarily use Microsoft's Copilot, while 16% said they mostly use Google's Gemini. Other surveys have shown that managers are more likely than their employees to use AI, but the latest findings suggest a dystopian future where leadership loses its human touch entirely. 'While AI can support data-driven insights, it lacks context, empathy, and judgment,' Stacie Haller, chief career advisor at Resume Builder, warned in a statement. Haller said it's essential not to lose the 'people' in 'people management,' pointing out that AI reflects the data it's given, which can be flawed and manipulated. The concern is real enough that lawmakers have introduced legislation to limit AI's role in employment decisions. In March, a California state senator introduced the 'No Robo Bosses Act,' aimed at preventing employers from letting AI make key decisions — such as hiring, firing or promotions — without human oversight. 'AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around,' California State Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, said in a release announcing the legislation. While generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Google's Gemini have only been mainstream for a few years, they're already reshaping how people work — and how they look for work. Recent college graduates have taken notice, as the rise of AI chips away at entry-level white collar roles, helping create one of the toughest job markets in years. Meanwhile, employers are getting buried in AI-generated resumes. The number of applications submitted on LinkedIn has surged more than 45% in the past year, and the platform is now clocking an average of 11,000 applications a minute, according to the New York Times. Resume Builder's survey doesn't detail exactly how managers are using AI to automate personnel decisions. After all, there's a big difference between organizing metrics for a performance review and asking ChatGPT: 'Should I fire Steve?'
Miami Herald
16-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
California's ‘No Robo Bosses Act' advances, taking aim at artificial intelligence in the workplace
One company offers Bay Area employers artificial intelligence that filters potential hires by combing through 10,000 public online sources looking for references to violence or illegal drugs. Another uses the technology to scan workers' office emails for signs of dissatisfaction or burnout. Others offer AI analysis of workers' every online action in the workplace. As artificial intelligence gives new, powerful tools to employers seeking to streamline hiring and monitor workers, a bill is advancing through the California Legislature to address fears that the technology could unfairly deny workers jobs and promotions or lead to punishment and firings. The "No Robo Bosses Act" - Senate Bill 7 - seeks to impose human decision-making over certain workplace-automation technology. Introduced by state Sen. Jerry McNerney, a Pleasanton Democrat, it passed the state Senate in a 27-10 vote earlier this month. "When it comes to people's lives and their careers, you don't want these automated decision-making systems to operate without any oversight," McNerney said. If passed, SB 7 would bar employers from relying "primarily" on automated decision-making software for promotion, discipline or firing of employees. Any automated decision would need to be reviewed by a person who must investigate and "compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision," the bill said. The bill, which heads to the state Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee on June 25, also would ban employers' use of products that aim to predict workers' behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, psychological or emotional states, or other characteristics. McNerney's office in March issued a news release with a link to a list of companies purportedly selling "bossware" workplace-management technology. Some of the businesses offer products that could violate provisions of the bill, particularly a ban on software that infers workers' mental states. Others, like Bay Area firm Braintrust, sell software that automates hiring processes, which the original version of the bill would have banned. "With recent dramatic advances in the capabilities of AI systems, the need for regulatory frameworks for accountability and responsible development and deployment have become ever more urgent," an analysis for the state Senate Judiciary Committee said. One AI company on the list, Veriato of Florida, markets its product's ability to analyze workers' emails to "detect signs of dissatisfaction or burnout," and "pinpoint disgruntled workers and possible security risks." Another on the list, Cogito of Boston, touts its "Emotion AI and Conversation AI" that analyze call center workers' voices to give their supervisors "visibility into live conversations of their teams." Veriato and Cogito's parent company, Verint, did not respond to questions about their products and the bill. Other offerings from the hundreds of companies on the list include eye tracking, keystroke recording and analysis of workers' online actions in the workplace, from text messaging and app usage to web browsing. The provision to prohibit fully automated hiring was removed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, with McNerney's consent, the committee analysis said. The California Chamber of Commerce, leading a coalition opposing the bill, had objected to including hiring, contending only the smallest companies would have been able to comply with that provision. Employers would have to notify job applicants if they use automated decision-making in hiring. The CalChamber, in a letter representing the coalition, argued that many of the bill's requirements are "onerous and impractical." The coalition includes the California Retailers Association, the California Grocers Association, and TechNet, which speaks for Apple, Cisco, Google, HP, Meta, OpenAI, Salesforce, Tesla, Uber and Waymo. Missteps would "lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers," and the bill fails to consider the benefits of automated decision-making, the May 12 letter said. The groups also assailed the total ban on using software to predict behaviors, saying financial institutions use such technology to assess the risk of fraud and other crimes. With hiring excluded from the bill, technology such as San Francisco AI company Braintrust's autonomous video interviews of potential hires, which produce "detailed scorecards along with pass/fail results," would remain legal. Also legal would be Los Angeles AI company Fama's "out-of-the-box" artificial intelligence "solution" for employers to filter potential hires by combing through 10,000 public online sources, including social media and blogs, for red flags such as "violent language," insults, "suggestive language," or promotion of marijuana use. Braintrust and Fama did not respond to questions about their products and the bill. The law would be enforced by the state labor commissioner, and public prosecutors and workers could file civil lawsuits over claimed violations. Employers would be fined $500 for any violations. Asked how employers could be prevented from simply rubber-stamping machine-made decisions, McNerney said, "There's always going to be potential for abuse in the workplace - having a human being in the loop gives some sort of protection." Meanwhile, at the national level, the Republican funding bill seeks to limit state regulations on AI. The House version would impose a 10-year ban on such regulation. The Senate version would withhold federal AI-infrastructure funds from states that regulate the technology over the next decade. President Donald Trump's tech adviser, Silicon Valley billionaire venture capitalist David Sacks, has supported the moratorium as the "correct small government position." The alternative, Sacks said in a post on X, "is a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes driven by the AI Doomerism." More than two dozen California members of Congress have come out in opposition to the 10-year ban, saying in a June 5 letter to U.S. senators that "the United States must take the lead on identifying and setting common sense guardrails for responsible and safe AI development and deployment," and preventing states from regulating AI "is inconsistent with the goal of AI leadership." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
East Bay politician introduces bill to ensure human oversight of AI in workplace
(KRON) — An East Bay elected official has introduced a bill to require human oversight in the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Senate Bill 7, known as the 'No Robo Bosses Act,' was introduced by State Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton). The legislation, according to McNerney's office, is designed to 'require human oversight of artificial intelligence systems in the workplace to help prevent abuses.' SB 7 would bar employers in California from primarily relying on AI systems known as automated decision-making systems (ADS), to make 'hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination decisions,' without human oversight. SB 7 would also prohibit employers from using ADS systems from using the personal information of workers to 'predict' what they might do in the future. Salesforce joins growing list of companies ending diversity hiring initiatives 'Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace,' said McNerney. 'But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers' livelihoods and working conditions.' 'SB 7 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it establishes guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses — by putting a human in the loop,' he continued. 'AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.' The legislation is sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO. If the legislation is passed, McNerney's offices said it will be the first of its kind in the nation. AI and ADS systems are increasingly being used by employers in California and around the world. However, McNerney's office cites examples of 'bossware' products that prioritize efficiency and cost-savings over health and safety. In the health care industry, nurses have reportedly had their hours and wages set by algorithms with no human oversight. McNerney's office also cites examples of people being mistakenly terminated from their jobs by AI. ADS models have also reportedly used 'predictive behavior' models that collect personal data from workers and initiated 'adverse actions against a worker based on what the AI 'predicts' the worker will do.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Politico
06-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
Inside Jerry McNerney's new AI strategy
Hello California Playbook PM readers! We're excited to bring you a special, two-week preview of our new daily newsletter POLITICO Pro Technology: California Decoded in this space. If you like what you read, you can subscribe here. California Playbook PM will return on March 17. QUICK FIX — A former AI player in Congress brings his battle to Sacramento. — Lawmakers vow to crack down on digital scammers through tech and banking. Welcome to California Decoded! Happy Thursday. Send feedback, tips and story ideas to tkatzenberger@ and chasedf@ Driving the day EXCLUSIVE: ENTER BIG FISH — Former Rep. Jerry McNerney — a vocal advocate of AI rules on the Hill — is today pushing his first bill on tech as a California state lawmaker in ambitious new legislation shared first with POLITICO. The Stockton Democrat tells us he feels more confident about success in his deep-blue home state after 16 years of jumping through hoops in a divided Congress. 'You actually can do things here,' McNerney told California Decoded in an exclusive interview. 'I'm really thrilled about that.' McNerney's maiden bill on the technology since his election last November, SB 7, seeks to crack down on AI in the workplace by prohibiting employers from using automated decision-making tools to make hiring, promotion, disciplinary and firing decisions without human oversight. The so-called 'bossware' systems would be barred from obtaining — or using AI to infer — personal information about employees, such as their immigration status, sexual orientation or credit history. Companies would be forbidden from taking adverse actions against workers based on inferences about their future behavior generated by predictive AI tools. 'We're really excited about this one,' McNerney said. 'This is probably going to be our biggest achievement this year.' It's nothing to sneeze at. His 'No Robo Bosses Act' (insert Terminator jokes here) is one of the influential California Labor Federation's three flagship, first-in-the-nation bills aimed at regulating how companies can use AI-powered systems to monitor and manage workers. That makes it prime turf for another tense battle pitting labor unions against Big Tech-aligned business groups, which argue their tools already offer privacy protections in compliance with existing state and national laws. But it's not the earth-shattering entrance that some California tech watchers might have expected from the eight-term representative and former congressional AI Caucus co-chair. McNerney told us that's on purpose. 'Oh no, no, nothing like that,' he said when asked if he would carry anything rivaling SB 1047, state Sen. Scott Wiener's sweeping AI safety bill that triggered Big Tech backlash and pitted leading congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi up against AI doomers like Elon Musk. 'This is my first year here, so I want to map out a long-term plan,' McNerney explained. 'But some things I think are urgently needed right now, and so that's where we're focused.' McNerney said he's still mulling other ways to push the envelope on AI regulations that fit his pragmatic approach. He declined to share more details for now but expected he'll soon flesh out a placeholder bill, SB 833, that would keep 'humans in the loop' when AI systems oversee 'critical infrastructure,' like water and electric projects. 'Establishing standards is an important part of the process, but we also want humans to be a part of the process,' he said. 'We don't want AI to just go rogue and make decisions without any kind of oversight.' McNerney's not the only lawmaker stepping back from the brink after industry opposition and Gov. Gavin Newsom's veto pen killed some of the Legislature's most ambitious proposals to rein in AI last year. Wiener told us last week that he significantly pared back his latest AI safety push, SB 53, in response to Newsom's veto of his SB 1047 last September. Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Yolo County Democrat, similarly trimmed her latest push to stick human safety operators behind the wheel of some autonomous delivery vehicles after Newsom sank it last year. NEWS BREAK: President Donald Trump delays most tariffs on Mexico for one month … Trump says Musk lacks unilateral authority to fire federal workers. HAPPENING TODAY 2 p.m. PT — California's privacy watchdog, the CPPA, holds a closed-door board meeting to discuss a potential new executive director after former leader Ashkan Soltani departed in January. Soltani helped build out the CPPA following its creation in 2020, including its enforcement division, and made rulemaking recommendations, which faced legal challenges. It comes as the agency weighs sweeping proposed rules on automated decision-making that have attracted fierce criticism from tech and business groups. The draft regulations would require businesses to scale back their use of automated tools in a wide array of scenarios if customers ask to opt out, ranging from targeted advertising in online shopping to facial recognition software used at ticketing gates. State Capitol BILLIONS WITH A B — Californians are losing billions of dollars every year to increasingly sophisticated financial scams that authorities have long struggled to combat since online tricksters often reside abroad. So state lawmakers are promising to introduce more bills this session to crack down not just on scammers, but also the tech and telecom companies they use to bilk billions from the state's economy. 'I suspect we will continue to see bills this legislative cycle to address this,' said state Sen. Monique Limón during a hearing Wednesday on tech-enabled scams at the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee. California residents have lost at least $2.5 billion to scammers in the last year, U.S. Secret Service San Francisco Special Agent in Charge Shawn Bradstreet told the committee. Speaking to the committee and representatives from tech industry group TechNet and JPMorgan Chase, Limón said previous bills on the issue had been difficult to advance. She said she hoped to find common ground on heading off scams that target people on social media, through their cell carriers and elsewhere. Dylan Hoffman said on behalf of TechNet that social media companies have worked hard to detect and flag scammy accounts, many of which originate from overseas, on their sites. 'These are incredibly sophisticated criminal organizations,' Hoffman said. Options are limited for the state, and even the feds, to bust up overseas crime rings since they lack jurisdiction. Telecom providers are federally regulated and states can't force them to further clamp down on digital shysters. But putting more pressure on tech companies and banks in California is an option the committee appears to be considering. State Sen. Laura Richardson, for example, has authored a bill that would require increased security for digital payment apps. State Sen. Tim Grayson, who chairs the committee, told California Decoded a bill Newsom vetoed last year could be resurrected this session. Authored by former state Sen. Bill Dodd, that effort was aimed at preventing financial abuse of seniors by requiring the flagging and delaying of transactions that could be the result of fraud. Grayson said he wouldn't know for sure if the legislation is coming back until after the deadline to flesh out spot bills. Byte Sized — Anthropic submits AI proposal to Trump's White House (POLITICO Pro) — Former Meta official's 'explosive' memoir to be published next week (AP) — Crypto can't stop fighting itself (POLITICO) — California's list of failed tech projects just keeps growing (CalMatters) — DOGE's play for government data is straining a law inspired by Watergate (POLITICO) Have a tip, event or AI spaghetti video to share? Do reach out: Emma Anderson, California tech editor; Chase DiFeliciantonio, AI and automation reporter; and Tyler Katzenberger, Sacramento tech reporter.
