// ZDNET — INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE
Regulators are trying to protect you from being fired by AI – here’s how
Regulating AI at work is happening slowly, but it's still stuck at the state level.
AI use at work is up, touching everything from everyday tasks to hiring and performance reviews. An April survey conducted by MyPerfectResume found that of 1,000 HR professionals, 73% said they use AI to make hiring decisions and 52% said they use AI to inform “restructuring and role planning.”
Hiring managers are also turning to AI for deeper behavioral insights when screening candidates: Over half of respondents (51%) use it to “flag ‘risky’ candidates.” Only 26% of respondents said they don’t use AI to make decisions about layoffs.
Also: How to beat the AI algorithm and get the job of your dreams
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed new legislation protecting workers from certain AI-powered decision-makers in the workplace. The bill covers these issues from a few angles — here’s what the regulation is trying to address, and how it could set the tone for future state or federal legislation.
SB 947, somewhat cheekily called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” prohibits employers from outsourcing disciplinary and termination decisions entirely to AI, referred to in the bill as automated decision systems (ADS). The bill requires employers to check any AI decisions on employee discipline or termination, as well as provide the employee with a description of the reasons for the decision. That includes any data used to make the decision, including personnel files, evaluations, work product, peer reviews, and “witness interviews.”
“If an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer shall not use the ADS output to make a disciplinary or termination decision,” the bill states.
Also: AI just broke your career ladder – here are 6 new ways to the top
The law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2027, lets affected employees file complaints with the California Labor Commissioner if they believe this process was not followed correctly in a firing decision. It does not fully prohibit the use of automated systems for these determinations. It also requires employers to clarify whether “a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is caused by an AI system,” according to a brief on the governor’s website.
While AI regulation at the federal level remains less specific, mired in voluntary agreements with labs, and arguably focused on distractions, states have risen to the challenge of creating initial protections for workers. Still, when it comes to AI in hiring and other workplace processes, some states like Colorado and Connecticut have opted for mandating disclosure of AI use rather than actual intervention.