Muslim World Report

AI Automation and Worker Rights: A Call for Shorter Workdays

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 7, 2025 10:25 AM | 9 min read | 1813 words

TL;DR: The rise of AI and automation poses significant threats to worker rights and job security. Advocating for shorter workdays, as exemplified by Finland’s six-hour workday, could be a promising solution to combat these challenges. Unity among workers, unions, corporations, and governments is essential to navigate this transformative landscape and ensure equitable futures.

The Future of Work: Navigating the Labor Crisis in an Automated Age

The rapid advancement of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is poised to dramatically reshape the global workforce, presenting significant challenges to labor rights, economic stability, and social justice. As corporations adopt these technologies to streamline operations and cut costs, fears are mounting over the erosion of job security and the diminishing leverage of workers.

Central to this unfolding crisis is a contentious debate among labor advocates:

  • Some suggest postponing significant strikes until 2028, a strategy that could afford businesses crucial time to implement automation without facing immediate resistance from workers (Estlund, 2017).

However, this approach risks leaving the workforce vulnerable as job opportunities dwindle and the cost of living continues to rise.

What if the job market shrinks significantly in the next few years? Workers may find themselves in a precarious position, struggling to maintain standards of living in a landscape of increasing unemployment. The implications of unchecked automation extend far beyond the immediate future of work; they resonate with fundamental questions about economic inequality and social justice.

If left unchallenged, the benefits of automation will likely accrue primarily to corporations and tech moguls, while vast sectors of the workforce face obsolescence. The looming labor crisis underscores the urgent need for proactive measures to safeguard workers’ rights and ensure equitable economic participation. As we confront this pivotal moment, the global community must recognize the urgency of labor advocacy in the face of technological transformation.

The Specter of Widespread Unemployment

If the current trajectory of automation continues unchecked, we may witness a future characterized by mass unemployment, particularly impacting low-wage and routine jobs. Sectors that could suffer substantial job losses include:

  • Retail
  • Transportation
  • Service industries

As AI and robotics assume roles traditionally held by humans (Bui, 2020), this shift threatens not only individual workers but also has broader economic implications:

  • Decreased consumer spending
  • Heightened social unrest

Communities already grappling with poverty and inequality could experience exacerbated hardships, as displaced workers struggle to find new employment. The psychological ramifications of widespread unemployment may manifest in increased mental health issues and social instability, further straining public resources (Mutz, 1992). Economically, a shrinking labor force may lead to reduced tax revenues, ultimately hindering governments’ abilities to fund essential social programs (Byrne, 1990).

Consider the “What If” potentialities:

  • What if the unemployment rate reaches levels not seen since the Great Depression?
  • What measures might governments take to address the fallout?

Discussions may shift towards safety nets like Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a means to cushion the impacts of mass displacement. While UBI could provide essential support, it is not a panacea; its implementation would require significant political will and funding that may be lacking in an economically strained environment.

As we consider how societies will redefine value and work in the wake of automation, we must ask: Will we allow technology to dictate our economic future, or will we rise to challenge the status quo and advocate for equitable solutions?

The Risks of Inaction by Labor Advocates

If labor advocates choose to delay action and fail to mobilize effectively against the tide of automation, they risk forfeiting an opportunity to shape the conversation on workers’ rights. A lack of cohesive strategy may fracture the labor movement itself, leading to disunity among various factions and organizations.

Key consequences of inaction include:

  • Fragmented leadership resulting in inconsistent messaging
  • Diluted overall impact of protests or advocacy efforts
  • Empowered corporations pushing forward with automation initiatives without fear

The historical dynamics of labor struggles remind us that the stakes are high. Just as past labor-saving technologies have disrupted the workforce, the current wave of automation has the potential to do so on an unprecedented scale, particularly in sectors like logistics, management, and customer service.

Many workers may face deskilling and wage cuts, while others will find new opportunities in emerging fields. Yet without a strategic response, labor advocates may find themselves perpetually playing catch-up in a rapidly evolving landscape.

Imagine a scenario where the labor movement becomes so fragmented that it loses sight of its primary mission: advocating for workers’ rights.

  • What if labor unions start to splinter into factions that no longer collaborate, leading to weakened bargaining positions?

The long-term implications of a fragmented labor movement may diminish any hopes for effective policy reforms aimed at addressing the complexities of a labor market increasingly dominated by technology.

As workers grapple with the specter of automation, the pressing need for unity and strategic action has never been clearer. What if labor leaders prioritize collaboration over competition? Strengthened coalitions across different sectors could help create a formidable front against corporate interests and build a more resilient labor movement capable of responding to emerging challenges.

The Promise of Shorter Workdays

In contrast, the implementation of shorter workdays, inspired by innovative models like Finland’s six-hour workday, could emerge as a compelling response to automation’s challenges.

If this alternative gains traction, it could fundamentally reshape labor dynamics, redistributing hours and creating better work-life integration. This model presents an opportunity not only to mitigate the potential for reduced job availability but also to enhance overall productivity and employee well-being (Davies et al., 2018).

Adopting a shorter workday could lead to:

  • A more engaged workforce
  • Enhanced creativity and collaboration within organizations

As employees experience an improved quality of life, their productivity may increase, ultimately benefiting employers. This shift might also stimulate job creation by necessitating more workers to fill the hours previously occupied by fewer employees.

However, what if organizations resist this change? Achieving broader acceptance of shorter workdays requires a substantial cultural shift in how work is perceived and valued. Organizations might fear loss of profits or competitive edge. In such a scenario, advocates, policymakers, and businesses must engage in a collaborative dialogue that recognizes the unique challenges posed by automation while prioritizing workers’ well-being.

To facilitate this shift, what if funding from military expenditures were redirected toward initiatives that support the transition to shorter workdays? This could create meaningful pathways toward sustainable employment (Sharma et al., 2022).

This transformative model could pave the way for a more equitable future, where the horrors of mass unemployment and economic instability are replaced by a renewed focus on shared prosperity. But the success of this initiative would rely heavily on the collaborative efforts of workers, businesses, and governments to overcome entrenched resistance and foster a culture that values balance and well-being in the workforce.

Strategic Maneuvers: Options for All Stakeholders

Navigating the complexities of labor rights and automation necessitates strategic maneuvers from all stakeholders. Workers, unions, corporations, and governments each have critical roles to play in shaping the future of work amidst these challenges.

Workers and Unions

Workers and their representatives should prioritize immediate action, utilizing grassroots organization to instigate collective bargaining efforts that address the realities of automation. This includes advocating for policies that protect job security, enhance workers’ rights, and demand equitable distribution of profits derived from automation. Labor leaders must develop comprehensive strategies that emphasize solidarity across sectors, fostering collaboration among diverse groups to present a united front against corporate interests (Esen & Binatlı, 2017).

Corporations

Corporations, for their part, must acknowledge their social responsibilities in the face of technological advancements. Embracing ethical practices regarding automation requires businesses to engage in transparent dialogues with employees and labor representatives.

Consider a scenario where corporations view their workers as partners in innovation rather than merely resources to be managed. This engagement could lead to innovative solutions that balance efficiency with employee welfare, such as:

  • Reskilling initiatives
  • Transitional support for workers displaced by technology

By adopting inclusive practices that consider the human aspect of automation, companies can foster loyalty and drive long-term success.

Governments

Governments must prioritize regulatory frameworks that address the implications of automation while providing safety nets for affected workers. This includes enacting legislation that promotes job creation, implements UBI, and supports retraining programs. Public resources should be allocated toward exploring alternative work models, like shorter workdays, that facilitate healthier labor environments. Policymakers should engage with labor advocates to capture valuable insights and ground future regulations in the realities faced by working people (Estlund, 2017; 2018).

The Future of Labor Advocacy

The trajectory of automation presents daunting challenges but also unprecedented opportunities for labor advocacy. Labor movements must adapt to new realities brought about by technology while remaining rooted in the historical fight for worker rights.

As we contemplate the future, we must ask ourselves: What if labor advocates harness the power of technology to strengthen their cause? Digital platforms could facilitate grassroots organizing, expand outreach efforts, and create virtual spaces for discussion and solidarity among workers from diverse backgrounds.

Moreover, labor movements could leverage data analytics to enhance their strategies, using insights into job displacement trends to better target their advocacy efforts. The potential use of blockchain technology in labor agreements could enhance transparency and accountability in workforce relations.

As these changes unfold, labor advocates must remain vigilant, ensuring that the conversation around automation includes voices from the most affected demographics—those disproportionately impacted by technological advancements. This inclusive approach will be critical in preventing future crises and ensuring equitable solutions that address the needs of all workers.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). “The Impact of Automation on Labor Markets and Income Inequality: An Empirical Analysis.” American Economic Review.
  • Ajunwa, I. (2019). “Automation and the Future of Work: The Role of Employee Surveillance.” Harvard Business Review.
  • Bui, Q. (2020). “The Automation of Work: How AI is Reshaping Our Job Market.” The Atlantic.
  • Byrne, D. (1990). “The Economic Effects of Unemployment on Governments.” Public Finance Quarterly.
  • Davies, S., et al. (2018). “The Effects of Job Loss on Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study.” Social Science & Medicine.
  • D’Amico, R., et al. (2022). “The Social Consequences of Unemployment: Lessons from Historical Crises.” Journal of Labor Economics.
  • Esen, E., & Binatlı, A. (2017). “Solidarity and Strategy in Labor Movements: Lessons for Today’s Activists.” Labor Studies Journal.
  • Estlund, C. (2017). “Labor, Technology, and the Future of Work.” The Yale Law Journal.
  • Estlund, C. (2018). “The Effects of Automation on the Legal Framework of Work.” Columbia Law Review.
  • Gurbaxani, V., & Whang, S. (1991). “The Impact of Technology on Labor Markets.” Production and Operations Management.
  • Jones, C. (2010). “Historical Movements and the Future of Labor Rights.” Journal of Contemporary History.
  • Mutz, D. C. (1992). “The Effect of Unemployment on Mental Health.” American Journal of Sociology.
  • Rustin, A. (1965). “Economic Justice in the Civil Rights Movement.” The New York Times.
  • Sharma, R., et al. (2022). “Redirecting Funding: A Path Towards Sustainable Employment.” Journal of Environmental Economics.
← Prev Next →