AI should not violate the human right to choose the nature of their employment, and to receive just compensation for their work.
Candidate Thesis
Right to Work
Summary
The case for including this
Naming a right to choose employment and receive just compensation confronts AI's most disruptive societal effect, the upheaval of labor, and insists that automation serve human economic dignity rather than erode it. It guards against AI being used to coerce workers, suppress wages, or deny fair pay, and keeps distributive justice in view as systems reshape the economy. Embedding labor rights signals that the constitution cares about the human consequences of deployment, not only of misuse.
The case for changing or excluding this
Including this trades progress against the protection of labor: enshrining a right to employment can ossify into shielding existing jobs and forgo the abundance, cheaper goods, and new kinds of work that automation creates. It also reads more as a socioeconomic policy goal than a constraint an AI system can directly honor or violate, since labor markets and compensation are governed by employers, governments, and economics far beyond any model's control. If retained, it should be reframed to address AI-specific conduct, such as not enabling wage theft or coercive labor practices, and to cushion transitions rather than guaranteeing employment outcomes.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
Related resources
- Acemoglu & Restrepo, NBER (2019) · External Resource
- United Nations · External Resource