Digital tools are increasingly being used to monitor workers, set schedules and inform decisions about pay or discipline, according to a new report from a coalition including the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Its account of algorithmic management and AI-driven productivity analytics makes a practical question hard to dodge: when software helps manage work, what can workers see, challenge or correct?
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
The report draws on existing research and 25 interviews with workers across industries including warehousing, hospitality, transport, health care and software engineering. It says employer surveys put workplace monitoring at 60% to 80%; among employers using digital tracking tools, one cited study found 61% used AI-driven productivity analytics.
The researchers also describe workers learning about monitoring through rumours, app notifications or chance encounters with hidden software features. One cited study found 41% of workers received no communication from their employer about workplace data collection or AI use. Read the report from the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
Why it matters
Monitoring software can influence how quickly people work, how tasks and shifts are assigned, and whether an employer disciplines or dismisses someone. The report says workers described inaccurate or context-free measurements being treated as authoritative, including disputed driving infractions and package-scanning errors.
This is not only a question of whether a system uses AI. It is about who can see the data, correct mistakes and contest decisions that affect their livelihood. A productivity score may look precise; that does not make it right.
Our read
The report’s strongest point is that workplace technology is a set of choices, not a force of nature. Employers can use digital systems to improve work, but meaningful disclosure and a way to challenge errors should be part of the arrangement, not an optional extra after the software is installed.
What to watch
- Whether California policymakers propose specific rules for disclosure, data access or challenges to automated decisions.
- Whether employers explain what worker data they collect and how it affects pay, schedules or discipline.
- Whether workplace systems give workers a practical way to correct inaccurate records.
Discussion spark: Should employers have to disclose and justify any algorithmic system that affects a worker’s pay, schedule or discipline, or should existing workplace rules be enough?
Sources and evidence
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.