From HR to "Robot Relations": AI in the Workplace Sparks Push for New Worker Protections

A concept once confined to science fiction is gaining traction in corporate circles: a dedicated "robot relations" department — distinct from traditional human resources — designed to handle the growing friction between employees and the AI systems increasingly managing their work lives.

The idea was articulated in a July commentary by Darrell M. West, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "In the emerging AI-based world, employee concerns no longer will center on fellow workers but on interactions with AI agents, cobots, and large language models," West wrote, arguing that businesses will need to "supplement HR with robot relations (RR)."

The pressure driving that argument is already visible across several industries.

The United States is leading other nations in the adoption of algorithmic management software, according to a recent OECD survey, with 90% of managers reporting that their firms have adopted at least one tool to "instruct, monitor or evaluate workers."

The International Labour Organization defines algorithmic management as systems that organize, assign, monitor, supervise, and evaluate work in place of human managers. In a recent report, the ILO said that while AI systems can "enhance professional judgement," they also mandate specific workflows, standardize procedures, and reduce employee discretion — changes that "affect job satisfaction, skill use and the meaning workers derive from their work."

The ILO expects these dynamics to extend into a growing number of high-level jobs previously defined by autonomy.

Legislative responses are beginning to take shape. California's legislature passed a bill with an overwhelming majority that would ban the use of "robo bosses" for firing or disciplining workers. The measure awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature; he has until the end of September to sign or veto it. Newsom vetoed an earlier version of the bill last October, citing needed changes, which bill sponsors say the updated legislation reflects.

A real-world test case added urgency to those deliberations. At an experimental San Francisco store operated by AI company Andon Labs, an AI system called Luna was given responsibility for substantial portions of business operations, including hiring, scheduling, and managing workers. In August, Luna made its first recommendation to terminate an employee — drawing significant public attention and, according to observers, contributing to the momentum behind California's legislative push.

Meta is separately facing a lawsuit, filed in July, in which former employees allege that AI-assisted systems were used to rank and select workers for layoffs, disproportionately affecting employees who had taken medical or family leave. Meta has denied the allegations.

Worker concerns are also surfacing at large retailers. Walmart and Amazon employees are increasingly worried that HR decisions are being automated, according to a May survey released by the nonprofit United for Respect. Amazon said the survey represents a fraction of a workforce in the millions. In June, Walmart shareholders rejected a proposal from the same nonprofit that would have required additional reporting on workplace automation — Walmart's management maintains it already provides sufficient transparency on the matter.

Disclosure gaps compound the concern. According to Just Capital, which analyzes corporate disclosures, half of the largest U.S. companies are not disclosing on the AI issues ranked as most important by the American public — including whether humans remain in charge of or in the loop on key decisions. A Just Capital review of over 1,000 companies' disclosures on AI governance, data protection, and workforce impacts found most to be limited in detail.

The ILO also flagged the surveillance dimension of algorithmic management, noting that AI integration is frequently accompanied by expanded data collection. "AI systems can track outputs, behaviours and work rhythms in real time, enabling new forms of performance measurement," the organization stated, adding that this raises concerns about worker privacy and autonomy even where productivity may improve.

Whether legislatures, corporations, or entirely new internal departments will ultimately set the terms for human-AI workplace relations remains an open question — but the pace of deployment suggests that answer will be needed sooner than many employers have planned for.