
Maddie Chang is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s [email protected], CNET writers push for union in light of AI concerns, and the FTC releases a policy statement on biometrics that may have implications for the use of biometrics in the workplace.
Journalists at CNET, a technology news company, are pushing to join a union and are citing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a major concern. As reported in Bloomberg News, about 100 CNET employees, including writers, video producers, and editors, hope to join Writers Guild of America (WGA) East. CNET came under fire earlier this year when they began using AI to write content for news stories online. After an internal audit, CNET had to go back and issue corrections on more than half of the AI-generated or written stories. One explanation that other newsrooms that have used AI have offered as to why they are using automation is that it allows writers to focus less tedious work. But there is also concern that increased use of AI in newsrooms will also lead to more layoffs. In a statement issued last week, the CNET workers said: “A union would give us a voice on new AI and marketing initiatives and allow us to safeguard our workloads, bylines and careers.” By unionizing, CNET workers are hoping to have a say in how AI tools are used in the process of covering the news.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new policy statement on biometric technology. In the statement, the FTC defines biometric information as “data that depict or describe physical, biological, or behavioral traits, characteristics, or measurements of or relating to an identified or identifiable person’s body.” This includes things like facial recognition technology, fingerprinting, and monitoring software that tracks employees’ movements. In recent years, this type of technology has increasingly been used in the workplace, both to surveil existing workers and as part of the process of hiring new workers. The statement raises concerns about bias and discrimination that can occur as a result of using biometric technology, as well as privacy concerns that stem from “surreptitious and unexpected collection or use of biometric information.” It also cautions against making deceptive claims about the potential of these technologies to eliminate hiring bias. The statement ultimately urges companies that make and use biometric technologies to monitor their use for risks and harms, or to consider not using them in the first instance. The Commission voted 3-0 during to adopt the policy statement.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
May 26
New York Times reaches an agreement with the NYT Guild; Governor Walz vetoes a ride-share workers’ protections bill; Bloomberg reports a slowdown at the DOL; workers at a Barnes & Noble, a Chicago museum, and an REI vote to unionize.
May 25
New York Times reporting covers the corporate anti-union campaigns; American Airlines pilots reach a preliminary agreement on a new contract; and the WGA strike continues.
May 23
In today’s News and Commentary, NLRB prosecutors filed a complaint against Amazon for violating federal labor laws, and resident physicians at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens, New York went on strike. A new complaint by NLRB prosecutors alleges that Amazon changed its policies around access to its warehouse in Staten Island, New York, and its policies around paid […]
May 22
In this weekend’s news: the Minnesota legislature passes a labor bill offering protections for ride-share drivers, Bandcamp employees elect a union, and a gig company in San Francisco settles misclassification suits. Following the passage of an omnibus labor bill on Tuesday, the Minnesota legislature passed a bill guaranteeing ride-share drivers a minimum wage and other […]
May 22
[email protected]: CNET writers push for union in light of AI concerns, and the FTC releases a policy statement on biometrics that may have implications for the use of biometrics in the workplace.
May 21
NLRB judge finds Starbucks manager unlawfully retaliated against lead organizer; Second Circuit skeptical that NYC just cause protections for fast food workers preempted by NLRA; NLRB GC brings case arguing college athletes protected by NLRA.