*ETUI-Aude Cefaliello 14 results

"Les employeurs et les investisseurs présentent souvent la robotique et l'intelligence artificielle comme des outils pour remédier aux pénuries de main d'oeuvre, alléger la charge de travail et améliorer la qualité des emplois. Dans les faits cependant, l'adoption de ces nouvelles technologies sur le lieu de travail comporte de nombreux risques ; heureusement, les représentants des travailleurs peuvent interpréter certaines dispositions juridiques de manière stratégique pour protéger les travailleurs des dangers les plus graves."

National occupational health and safety (OHS) policy (e.g., legislation) underpins worker health protection and is imperative for healthy and safe working populations. In the interest of bolstering mental health through decent work, this study undertakes a global analysis of OHS policy for worker mental health and develops and validates a short tool quantifying national policy approaches—the National Policy Index (NPI, for worker mental health). Data were collected across 45 countries from 164 global experts (and/or expert groups) to capture policy presence, priority action areas, and drivers and barriers surrounding policy implementation. Analysis revealed top global psychosocial concerns are harassment, mobbing or bullying, work overload, discrimination, and poor work-life balance. Policy priorities are harassment, mobbing or bullying, discrimination, and physical violence. The psychosocial hazards/risks that are most addressed in policies or regulated are physical violence, discrimination, harassment, mobbing or bullying. The main driver for managing hazards is workplace senior management support and having specific national regulations, and the main barrier is poor resource availability. Further, the NPI was developed through exploratory factor analysis and validated through significant correlation with a national policy audit and to the 2019 European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks data, which reports enterprise level psychosocial safety climate (PSC, organisational policies, practices, and procedures for stress prevention). The correlation between the NPI and enterprise-level PSC highlights the critical role of national policy in protecting worker population mental health. Yet above and beyond national policy, national union density also related to enterprise PSC indicating that social action is also imperative. Findings suggest that global mental health can be reinforced via decent work outlined in national policy approaches, particularly legislation, as well as via senior management support, and collective approaches such as union action."

"Les changements climatiques créent de nouveaux risques auxquels les travailleuses et les travailleurs sont exposés de façon inégale. Les premiers secteurs touchés, tels que l'agriculture ou la construction, sont également ceux dont la main-d'oeuvre est particulièrement précaire. L'impact des changements climatiques est complexe et détériore tant les conditions de santé physique et mentale des travailleurs que leurs environnements de travail. L'application des principes généraux de prévention au stress thermique est possible, mais elle requiert une réorganisation en profondeur du travail ainsi que l'adoption d'une législation européenne qui fixe un seuil de protection minimale pour tous les travailleurs en Europe."

"Climate change is creating new risks to which workers are exposed in unequal fashion. The first sectors to feel the impact of extreme temperatures, such as agriculture or construction, are also those with extremely precarious workforces. This impact will be complex, adversely affecting physical and mental health in both direct and indirect ways. Applying the general principles of prevention to heat stress is possible but it will require a thorough overhaul of how work is organised and the adoption of European legislation that lays down a minimum protective threshold for all workers in Europe."

"Rather than being new, platform work extends pre-existing trends: greater control and surveillance, greater job precarity, and greater worker isolation and workplace fragmentation. Nevertheless, platform work distinguishes itself by its unique usage of algorithmic management software to constantly monitor, organize, and evaluate workers. These two features of platform work adversely affect both workers' physical and mental health. Platform workers are exposed to layers of risks: traditional risks and risks due to the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) at the workplace. Even if these risks are preventable, the widespread misclassification of platform workers as independent contractors shifts the legal and financial responsibilities to prevent the risks onto these workers, even if they do not have the organizational means and powers to do so. After providing a mapping of the risks that platform workers are exposed to, and the challenges they are facing in practice due to their fragmented employment setting (often combining offline work with platform work), this article examines the recent European Union (EU) initiatives affecting platform work—the Directive to improve working conditions of platform work, and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Thus, using a socio-legal methodology, the article aims to contribute to on-going debates on the platform economy and AI by providing a critical analysis of whether these two recent EU initiatives to regulate platform work address a minima the challenges previously raised by the increased use of digital platforms, and, in particular, whether they contain provisions that will effectively empower and protect platform …"

"The increasing deployment of algorithmic management in the workplace poses significant occupational safety and health risks for workers. In this article, we argue that existing and proposed EU regulatory frameworks are inadequate to address these risks, especially psychosocial risks, created or exacerbated by algorithmic management. While existing and proposed regulatory frameworks have significant implications for employers' obligations to mitigate these risks, we identify several psychosocial risks created or exacerbated by algorithmic management and show how the current and proposed regulatory frameworks fall short of adequately addressing these risks. We observe that these frameworks, based largely in the ‘safety by design' tradition, focus on the design phase of the technology life cycle. This focus does not adequately address risks that arise in the use or deployment stage of algorithmic management. There is therefore a need for a stand-alone piece of legislation at the EU level on algorithmic management. To address these shortcomings, we outline suggestions for provisions necessary for safe and healthy digitally managed work."

"In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future', which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5)."