Unions are rightly worried about AI’s potential to disrupt job security.
But public policy should not treat this disruption as inevitable displacement. It should treat it as a managed labour-market adjustment — and unions ought to be at the centre of that policy discussion.
Throughout my advocacy in labour, I have spoken with union, employer and training leaders about their concerns with AI, and there is a mixed bag of perspectives: excitement on one hand, apprehension on the other.
That apprehension should not be dismissed as resistance to innovation. It reflects a serious concern about preserving members’ jobs.
It also suggests governments, employers, training institutions and unions need a deliberate framework for AI adoption before the technology is imposed on workplaces faster than workers can adapt.
There is an incredible opportunity for industry leaders, especially union, to be at the centre of this conversation in Canada, and to meaningfully influence how AI is integrated into their workforces without resulting in terminations.
For one, AI ought to be governed as a productivity tool before it is treated as a headcount-reduction tool. Its first use should be to improve processes and strengthen people’s capacity to build and service infrastructure.
That requires clear rules of the road: advance notice when AI systems are introduced, worker consultation before deployment, training obligations tied to adoption and sector-specific transition plans where roles are likely to change. This should not diminish the need for skilled workers on the ground; rather, it should help them complete more work, more easily.
For workers whose administrative or oversight functions may change as AI is adopted more widely, retraining and skills development ought to help place them in charge of AI’s use, monitoring and regulation. In that model, they are not losing their jobs; they are evolving in their responsibility and work.
Practically, governments should link AI adoption to labour-market adjustment policy. Public procurement, infrastructure funding and sectoral innovation programs could require employers to disclose how AI will affect job tasks, what training will be provided and how workers will be redeployed where efficiencies are created.
Unions, in turn, should be empowered to negotiate AI clauses in collective agreements: notice requirements, joint technology committees, protection against arbitrary displacement and clear human oversight of automated decision-making.
This is not anti-innovation.
It is the policy architecture that allows innovation to proceed with legitimacy.
Some critics may suggest this is anti-competitive and delays innovation. I disagree. Workers bear the risk of disruption first.
We owe it to ourselves to ensure AI is adopted meaningfully and benefits both process enhancement and the people working within those processes. If companies, employers and trainers adopt AI in a stable and transparent way, they will foster trust and adoption.
Unions are in a strong position to advocate for this: to avoid discarding AI’s merits while protecting workers. After all, adopting technological innovation in a stable way helps preserve the most sought-after trait in market economics: certainty.
Certainty fosters growth. Growth encourages more jobs and market participation, which allows more Canadians to enjoy economic prosperity.
Unions are also well positioned to shepherd this transition because one of their greatest strengths is a built-in hedge against radical AI adoption. They promote the human nature of work. Union membership fosters a social element every human person seeks, to feel connected and tied in with community.
Unions were built on this premise: to protect human dignity against mechanistic industrial forces that expressed unfettered attitudes and practices toward workers, undermining their dignity and exploiting them for profit.
They should recall this history and apply the same moral vigour to forces that may re-express themselves through AI adoption, not by saying no to technology, but by insisting that technological change be negotiated, human-centred and tied to concrete worker protections.
There are opportunities to elevate this advocacy with federal and provincial governments across Canada.
Consider Prime Minister Mark Carney’s and Premier Doug Ford’s direct overtures to private sector unions and their memberships. In each case, there are clear signals to build and invest in major developments and projects that will offer tens of thousands of jobs to skilled workers.
AI adoption will certainly affect some of these jobs. Unions should ensure this aspect of the policy conversation is front and centre as these projects scale.
This is particularly relevant given Carney’s appointment of a minister responsible for AI. Bills and policy consultations are plentiful in both jurisdictions and there is certain overlap through federal-provincial-territorial forums.
Unions should target these forums as useful channels to advance policy discussion, including prudent AI adoption. Their memberships stand to benefit from game-changing technology enhancements, continued access to stable work and exciting nation-building projects.
Wellington Advocacy is a national public affairs firm. Benjamin Lamb serves clients through Wellington’s Ontario Business Line, specializing in labour advocacy.
Send Industry Perspectives Op-Ed comments and column ideas to [email protected].
