On Implementation and Innovation: A Conversation about Organized Labor and New Technology

Below is an excerpt of a recent conversation, “Labor’s Realignment in the AI Age with Sean O’Brien,” hosted on the American Compass Podcast. You can listen to the full conversation here.

Sean O’Brien: If you are bringing back work and industry into the United States and creating jobs and opportunities, that’s not a bad thing. And a lot of these jobs and industry that we’re looking to bring back into the United States can’t be replaced without artificial intelligence. So even though there’s some criticism on some of the stuff that’s being done, I think the Teamsters look at it, we think there’s great opportunity there.

Oren Cass: I’m glad you mentioned artificial intelligence because I was excited to ask you about it, and would otherwise have had to awkwardly transition to it, but now…

Sean O’Brien: See, we’re in sync. That was a great segue.

Oren Cass: We’re pulling back the curtain here for the listeners on the flawless segue.

Everybody’s struggling with this in various ways, especially on the right of center. There’s a real tension in some respects right now between what is a correct and deeply held commitment to technological innovation and progress as critical, and, at the same time, an increasing commitment to worker power and good outcomes for the typical worker as critical.

And there are times when those things go together. There are times when they feel like they’re in tension. How do you think about that, whether it’s artificial intelligence, or robotics and automation? To what extent do you feel like you can look at that and say, “Hey, look, at the end of the day that is good for workers, versus that’s something that labor or workers need to be pushing back against?”

Sean O’Brien: Well, I think there’s two things here. You talk about technology and innovation. I don’t think anybody can argue against innovation and just look behind me [on the wall]. I look up on the wall, there’s two horses, which symbolize what we’re all about. When the Teamsters were formed, we delivered goods and services by horse and buggy, which required more labor, more men and women. I’m certain we pushed back against the combustible engine, tractor trailers, and any type of technology because of where we were.

I think people get a bad perception that unions are against innovation and technology. We’re not against innovation or technology. What we’re against is how these efficiencies and technologies are implemented, implementation versus innovation.

Why are we going to be successful in politics and legislation? How could we be successful in a lot of legislation like the Faster Labor Standards Contracts? It’s by collaboration, it’s by talking, it’s by finding out what the trials and tribulations in the workplace are and having input from the workers whose jobs could potentially be vulnerable as a result of the technology.

You know there’s a lot of opportunity to create new jobs as a result of this technology being implemented, provided that there’s dialogue, inclusivity, and transparency in a lot of this technology. I don’t think we want to be an impediment to technology, but we’ve got an obligation to create as many jobs as possible as a result of this technology like we did at UPS. Look at UPS where we created a committee mandated in the collective bargaining agreement that requires the employer and union to meet to discuss whether any new technology is going to be implemented well in advance. If there are no agreements to create full-time jobs, there’s an arbitration mechanism to determine if jobs can or cannot be created or determine that the company should’ve created jobs as a result of this new technology.

We’ve got to be a little more proactive in being part of the process, but also if there’s a disagreement in the process, capturing an opportunity for the resolution of the dispute. We’ve got to be better there. Look, technology has been being implemented for decades upon decades.

Look at what the backhoe has done. It used to take a hundred shovels to dig a hole that you can dig with a backhoe. When you have a hundred laborers digging the hole, then the backhoe comes into play [that’s a massive technological change].

[But] that backhoe is getting from point A to point B on a tractor trailer driven by someone, the backhoe is getting fixed by a mechanic, it’s getting designed, built, and assembled by humans. So, you may lose the ability to have people performing certain functions, but you can also gain the ability to train new jobs with new job descriptions and functions as a result of this technology.

Oren Cass: The backhoe is a great example. One challenge that comes to mind from all perspectives is that the people who could dig holes with shovels aren’t necessarily the same people who drive tractor trailers or repair backhoes in the labor context.

They’re probably not even represented by the same union. How do you want labor leaders to generally think about this? As you know, technology is going to disrupt the jobs that are the core or an element of their membership and union today. Even if the opportunity might be that there are more and better jobs, either for those same people or, in some cases, different people somewhere else.

Sean O’Brien: Well, you got to retrain people as long as the benefits are the same, as long as the pay is going to increase, and there’s going to be sustainability and a future. I think everyone would love the ability that if work is diminished on one side that they have the ability to go be trained and perform a job regardless of who’s representing them.

I think AI is coming so fast and furious, and this is an unqualified opinion, but talking to people like you, talking to other people who are in the know a lot better than me, is that you’re going to see a pandemic of white-collar jobs being victimized as a result of artificial intelligence. And for once in my lifetime, and I’m 53 years old, there’s a panic of these corporate elitists, who have never been vulnerable to anything and have been focused primarily on the bottom line of a balance sheet.

It’s going to be interesting to see the reaction of those folks. And I’m talking about the lawyers, doctors, hedge fund people, accountants of the world. They’re going to be the hardest hit by artificial intelligence.

And those people once looked down and frowned upon others for what they chose to do for a living. Now, they might be working side by side with those folks trying to grind it out. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens.

Oren Cass: I predict confidently that one thing we’ll see is a lot of people who have been singing the praises of creative destruction and the importance of the free market are going to very suddenly discover all the reasons we should be concerned about creative destruction.

Sean O’Brien: What’s the saying? Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Oren Cass: I was going to say people have a tremendous ability to not see what’s in front of their nose if they’re not paid to.

Sean O’Brien: Well, money’s the biggest corruptor in the world for some.

Oren Cass: I think there’s a silver lining or an upside to the story that you’re telling, which we’ve seen in some of the work we do, which is that you’re suddenly seeing more alignment of interest in a way where there hasn’t been before. One of my favorite examples is a lot of Big Tech companies, who don’t have to think about the physical world at all, are all of a sudden realizing that electricians, who can help build their data centers, are the key to their future. They’re actually now paying attention to the trades and trying to learn what it takes to develop those kinds of workers.

Sean O’Brien: I think if you look at the membership of our union and the building trades as a whole we’re pretty sophisticated societies now. And it’s funny when you think about that layer that AI is going to destroy. Again, and this is just based upon having conversations with some people who are really high up in the AI food chain because it’s a concern for me. I’ve got an obligation to protect [my members] against any threat. But you think about this theory, if you eliminate the middle management, the accountants, the fat between the blue-collar workers and the CEOs of the world, where is all that savings going to go as a result of the AI coming in? To your point, AI isn’t going to destroy the trades. Many of our jobs are not going to be eliminated. But that is the argument that we have to partake in. We have to say “Hey, technology’s eliminated those jobs. Your profits are going to continue to grow because you’re doing more with fewer white-collar workers.” The demand now should be that these [remaining] people should be paid accordingly and share in the profits.

And the thing that always sticks out in my mind is human resources. I hate the word resources because resources can be given and thrown away. I don’t like our members being looked at as a resource. The elimination of unneeded white-collar employees by AI is an example of us showing that we’re no longer resources. We’re necessities. We want to be paid “x” amount because we know what the savings are as a result of the technology, the eliminated layer of unneeded fat. This is an opportunity, by looking at it this way–and I think that’s the way a lot of us should be looking at this, especially those who represent working people.

Don’t look at it as feeling bad for these people. Look at it as an opportunity to get more money, more benefits, more protections as a result of some of these efficiencies that aren’t going to directly affect working people.

Oren Cass: That’s exactly what I wanted to ask as my final question. What are the demands? I think you’re right that technological change happens and will continue to happen. It does seem to me that people resistant to technological change are rationally resistant if there’s nothing in it for them. But there’s obviously a much better outcome where the change benefits everybody. One element of this will come at the labor level where workers and unions will be demanding that if we’re making all these changes we also need “x” and “y.” And some of it will come at the political and policy level where you’re going to have regulation and new kinds of programs. Are there a few must-haves that are most important in your mind?

Sean O’Brien: The must-haves must start with conversations and collaborations. Those are the must-haves in any situations that can be controversial and detrimental to jobs. Having those conversations are not comfortable, whether they’re with people you may or may not agree with politically, and then reaching out and having conversations with industries that we’ve been attacking for years. Big Tech is building and implementing all this technology. Now it’s time to say “Alright, we know where you’re coming from. We know where your end game is. This is what we need. This is what we need to protect. This is how we can work together.”

I think cooperation and having conversations, whether politically, in the corporate world, or with Big Tech companies, to say “Look, these are our concerns. What are you going to do?” And I had a conversation with the Governor of Colorado, who thought it was just a nice thing to veto mandatory [human] operators of commercial vehicles in Colorado. I said to him “Where are you going to put these people. [And he said] “Well, it’s not going to happen for 10 or 12 years.” But whether it happens in 10 or 12 years or 10 or 12 minutes, where are we going to put all these people? People are so focused on the technology implementation that they’re not looking at the residual damage it’s doing outside of that geofence. And I think having these conversations may not stop the implementation, but it may provoke an opportunity to create jobs and maintain certain jobs.