In the 2025 book “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” the authors confidently predict how superhuman AI will lead to the annihilation of humanity. The book isn’t fiction. Existential threat or not, AI is here and growing all around us, including, increasingly, in the workplace. Its prevalence raises significant issues for unionized employers, such as whether and how AI may trigger mandatory bargaining regarding its use.
Not surprisingly, legislatures are also beginning to assess AI’s current and future impact on employees and the workplace, union and nonunion. While legislation is currently being considered in Minnesota, it seems unlikely to reach the necessary bipartisan support to pass this session. Employers would still be wise to monitor the bills and watch for new AI obligations and restrictions in the not-so-distant future.
Unions and AI
Employers in unionized settings are already seeing an increase in proposals from unions looking to rein in AI and eliminate, or at least limit, its impact on workers. Recent examples of union successes include a new provision in an International Longshoreman’s Association contract that prohibits all fully automated technology and a Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union agreement that contractually obligates covered employers to bargain over any decision to implement AI in the workplace.
Most unionized employers understand that matters affecting the “terms and conditions” of employment (such as wages, hours, benefits, etc.) are mandatory subjects of bargaining. So, if an employer decides to reduce wages or cut employee hours—regardless of whether it’s connected to AI—it must be negotiated.
But what if, as widely predicted, the introduction of AI reduces the need for human labor, leading an employer to implement layoffs? The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hasn’t yet issued a definitive ruling on bargaining obligations from AI-induced layoffs. Such employer decisions would certainly require the employer to bargain over the impact the layoffs will have on employees. Unions have very little leverage in such “effects” bargaining.
Whether the decision itself would be subject to bargaining might ultimately depend on the employer’s motivations behind its adoption of AI and the associated layoffs. Is it primarily to reduce labor costs? If so, the decision itself is likely subject to bargaining. Even if not, unions might successfully argue bargaining is required because such actions are akin to subcontracting. It also may be the case that bargaining is determined to be mandatory under various provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement.
Regardless, the NLRB and the courts are sure to provide answers in the coming months and years.
Minnesota Legislature and AI
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Legislature is presently considering legislation that would, if passed, impose new limits on all employer use of AI. Senate File 4689 seeks to regulate the use of what it calls Automated Decision Systems (ADSs). It would essentially cover all employment-related decisions relating to the implementation of AI, as well as require advance notice of—and employee consent to—the use of ADSs, impose significant recordkeeping obligations, and guarantee employees’ right to know when and how ADSs influenced “adverse” employment decisions.
Employees would also have appeal rights to challenge those decisions, and of course, the legislation would provide employees with the right to sue employers over violations and obtain damages (including punitive damages), attorneys’ fees, and penalties of up to $2,500 per violation per day.
As we note above, the current makeup of the Minnesota Legislature means a bill like this is unlikely to pass this session. However, as AI’s impact on the workplace accelerates exponentially, it’s all but guaranteed that laws and regulations are coming . . .
. . . unless artificial superintelligence kills us all first.
Paul J. Zech is an attorney with Felhaber Larson in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and can be reached at pzech@felhaber.com.