Abstract
The multifold development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the nature of work and work culture in India. While AI’s role in increasing employee productivity and creativity the risks that it poses cannot be downplayed. This article seeks to examine the phenomena of AI-induced job displacement in India and how competitive the new labour codes are in dealing with the same. This article identifies key gaps such as absence of reskilling mechanisms, proper social security provisions and legal acknowledgement of technologically unemployed workers. It concludes by proposing legal and policy reforms that are more futuristic and helps in transitioning the new labour market into an AI driven economy.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Job displacement, Informal Sector, Reskilling, Gig and Platform workers, Technological Unemployment, Labour Codes
Introduction
Today’s world, across all ages and generations, is deeply influenced by the technologies around us. However, technological transformation does not refer to consumer electronics or everyday devices. While they are significant advancements the world has witnessed in recent years, the most transformative developments have come from advances in artificial intelligence (AI).
30 November 2022 is an important date for researchers, developers, and the general public alike. OpenAI, an AI research and development company, which had previously released large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3, launched something unprecedented. On this day, ChatGPT was released to the world. Unlike its previous models, ChatGPT did not require coding skills or special access. It allowed users to interact through a simple web-based conversational interface while employing complex AI capabilities. It could generate essays, explain concepts, code and produce other forms of content all in a matter of seconds. For these very reasons, ChatGPT experienced a rapid public adoption and reportedly reached 1 million users in just 5 days.
With the early integration of AI into everyday life, people began turning to a versatile AI tool that could easily switch between analysing data, generating images, and creating content. However, developers later realised that AI tools do not need to be a versatile ‘jack-of-all-trades’, rather they just need tools that focus on and specialise in performing one task with exceptional quality; they are task-specific AI agents. As AI became more sophisticated and specialised, it did not take long for it to replace humans.
Initially, the companies not only encouraged but also trained their employees to integrate AI into their work, increasing productivity and efficiency. Employees were now able to handle larger workloads in the same amount of time, which often led employers to raise performance standards and expectations. Slowly leading to cognitive fatigue and burnout. As employers recognised that some tasks can be performed efficiently, consistently and at a much cheaper cost by specialised AI systems, the roles traditionally occupied by human workers became redundant. This transformation has led to growing concerns of AI-induced job displacement and the protection of the rights of such workers whose roles have become obsolete.
Policymakers, workers, and other stakeholders are therefore confronted with a pressing question: how should modern labour law frameworks respond to workers displaced by the adoption of artificial intelligence, and are the existing legal frameworks adequately equipped to address this challenge?
What is AI-induced job displacement?
The employment landscape was influenced by AI in two major spheres, one automation of routine tasks, and two, integration of algorithmic decision making. The AI is increasingly used to do daily mundane repetitive tasks which are rule based, such as coding and assembly line operations. The integration of AI in such rule based tasks is to reduce the need for human labour. Another domain where AI is increasingly used is to assist or replace human judgement in fields such as work allocation, performance evaluation etc.
When workers are required to upskill themselves and acquire new and updated knowledge to perform more and better within their existing roles is known as job transformation. However, when workers are rendered jobless and they are excluded from the workforce just because such roles are obsolete or employers no longer need people to perform such tasks is the phenomenon known as job displacement. While developing and adopting AI is a necessary technological advancement so that one does not suffer losses and to be more efficient, it creates an unrealistic gap between skill demands and capabilities of the existing workforce.
The great Indian labour market
To this day around 80-90% of the Indian workforce is employed in the informal sector, which lacks job security, social security and formal contracts. These workers are highly at risk of being displaced as automation can annihilate their roles without raising any concerns regarding labour rights of such employees. This is a major reason as to why India’s labour market is more susceptible to AI-induced displacement.
As stated earlier such employees are more vulnerable to automation due to redundant work, little to low skill requirement to perform tasks. India’s legislatures have always remained incompetent to bring preventive statutes, and focuses more on addressing the harm after it has occurred particularly through compensations or fixing liabilities. Due to this very same reason India’s labour laws have provided minimal support workers who got displaced because of AI development. This in itself is a challenge which is further worsened by skill gap, digital illiteracy particularly in rural India and gender inequalities in accessing employment and upskilling opportunities makes the Indian labour market inadequate to rapidly adopt to the AI driven market.
Indian Labour Codes
The Parliament enacted four new labour codes over the period of 2019 and 2020 which consolidated more than 29 central labour laws. This consolidation was aimed at simplifying enforcement and compliance and expanding coverage.
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code) replaced the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It made some significant changes to the earlier provisions. According to the new Code only an establishment with 300+ workers needs the government permission before retrenching or laying-off their workers. It was 100+ workers earlier. While increasing the threshold might seem harmless in plain sight, the number of establishments which have 300+ workers employed under them is relatively very few, thus robbing off the privileges that were earlier guaranteed to them.
The Code on Social Security, 2020 (CSS) replaces nine laws including the EPF Act, 1952, ESI Act, 1948, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. This Code had formally recognised gig and platform workers for the first time in Indian Labour law.
Code on Wages, 2019 replaces Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Payment of Bonus Act 1965. It establishes a floor wage and extends minimum wages to all. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC) replaces 13 laws including Factories Act 1948, Mines Act 1952, Contract Labour Act 1970.
Bridging the Gap
Staying true to Indian roots, the new labour codes too are reactive and compensatory in nature rather than learning from the mistakes from the past and bringing in a prospective legislature.
Firstly, the new Code does not recognise AI induced displacement as a form of retrenchment. It does not distinguish technological unemployment as a distinct category. Due to this, even if employees are displaced they will not get any of the retrenchment benefits, including compensation.
Second, the framework for reskilling and upskilling workers is underdeveloped. Even though it recognises and calls for the introduction of a re-skilling fund, its provision is limited to 15 days’ wages per retrenched worker. Which in all honesty is just symbolic rather than brought with the intention to bring transformation.
Thirdly, even though gig and platform workers were recognised by the CSS for the first time in India, its implementation is highly questionable with the wording used in the legislation with ‘may be introduced’ rather than bringing in a compulsion with ‘should be’.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence is a necessary evil, while life without the use and development of AI is unimaginable due to its increased productivity, innovation and cost effective benefits, one should not be blind sided by it alone. The risks that it poses to the working population both skilled and unskilled, and educated and illiterate by displacement, technological redundancy and AI management is immense and cannot be overlooked. While the new labour codes have fairly attempted to step up by bringing in new types of workers and bringing multiple legislations under one umbrella for ease of compliance and convenience, they still remain rooted to the industrial era framework, which is inadequate for this new tech and AI driven world. The lack of recognition of technological unemployment, adequate reskilling provisions and limited social security are some of the shortcomings that the law making authorities failed to take note of.
India must adopt legislative frameworks that recognise technological unemployment, categorise AI management and work assessment of workers as high risk and strengthen reskilling and social security provisions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: AARSHITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
