Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Health and safety at work – current and future challenges in light of traditional and new technologies, with a focus on AI (exploratory opinion requested by the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU)
Date: 2025-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: artificial intelligence, digital transformation, digitisation, equal treatment, labour law, mental health, new technology, occupational safety, teleworking, workplace








C_202502958EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2958


16.6.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

Health and safety at work – current and future challenges in light of traditional and new technologies, with a focus on AI


(exploratory opinion requested by the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU)

(C/2025/2958)


Rapporteur: 
Carlos Manuel TRINDADE






Advisors


Paulo José FERNANDES PEDROSO (for the rapporteur)
Clemens ØRNSTRUP ETZERODT (for Group I)




Request from the Polish Presidency of the Council


6.9.2024




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


11.3.2025




Adopted at plenary session


26.3.2025




Plenary session No


595




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


149/99/05




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1) (Framework Directive) has had a structural impact (2) on the improvement of the situation in Member States (MSs). The Framework Directive ‘with its prevention approach is a golden standard to workers’ protection’. It covers all risks to their safety and health (…). However, more efforts are needed to fully and effectively apply its provisions as well as those of the related directives on ground’ (3), as highlighted at the occupational safety and health (OSH) stock-taking summit in May 2023.












1.2.


EESC furthermore notes that the stock-taking summit ‘identified ongoing growing OSH issues […] such as […] the potential of Artificial Intelligence and robotics to create safer and healthier workplaces for all’ (4). The EESC reiterates the need to effectively implement the EU OSH Strategic framework relying on the principles of tripartism, sound scientific evidence-based policy making and streamlined procedures and avoidance of overlap.












1.3.


The nature of work is changing, with new trends in the interaction between humans and machines, new ways in which work is performed and organised – with the introduction of algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) – and other developments affecting workplaces, such as remote working, which has doubled since the pandemic (5).












1.4.


Digitalisation opens up opportunities and creates challenges at multiple levels; it can eliminate or reduce current risks, alter existing risks and pose new risks that need to be managed. This requires regulatory vigilance and, where necessary, the adoption of legal and negotiated measures.












1.5.


The digital transformation represents an opportunity for the EU to redress its failings in innovation and productivity and to restore its manufacturing potential. Europe needs to become more competitive, as illustrated in the Draghi report, while supporting the European social model and cohesion policy at all levels (6). However, the EU is lagging behind in digital technologies such as AI. It will be difficult to catch up with the US and China (7).












1.6.


The EESC underlines the need to take action at the right level to ensure that workers have the digital skills needed for the modern labour market. This is important to prevent the risk of deskilling, with the loss of workers’ autonomy, the loss of their ability to carry out professional tasks, and the risk of them being subjected to algorithm-based and AI-based labour management systems.












1.7.


The EESC recommends that the EU and MSs adopt policies that guarantee all workers, especially e-platform workers, lifelong training tailored to digital transition, human control over algorithms, and information and consultation rights on the use of AI in work management.












1.8.


It also recommends that the EU and MSs ensure that workers get adequate OSH training, in line with the requirements of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, especially in the event of the introduction of new work equipment or a change in equipment that is of particular relevance for AI at work.












1.9.


The EESC further notes that workers need to be able to perform and understand written and verbal OSH instructions. It is most worrying that on average in OECD countries, 18 % of adults lack even the most basic proficiency levels in literacy, mathematics or adaptive problem solving (8).












1.10.


If not properly trained, AI and other emerging technologies reflect biases and perpetuate harmful gender, racial stereotypes, age and disability related which pose a significant risk to OSH.












1.11.


The EESC underlines the fact that, with a view to enforcing a protective and implementable framework at EU and MS level, several pieces of EU legislation include provisions to ensure that, when an AI tool is deployed in the workplace, safe and fair working conditions for employees are safeguarded and workers are involved in the deployment process. In total there are 116 pieces of legislation in the EU digital agenda for 2030 (9). This legislative framework tries to address the impact that AI at the workplace can have on workers, their fundamental rights, their privacy, data protection, their autonomy, workers subjection to algorithm-based and AI-based labour management systems relying on the human in control principle, and their working conditions.












1.12.


It draws the attention of the Commission, Council and social partners to the need to adapt labour regulations in line with the risks of job insecurity and precariousness resulting from business models in sectors where digitalisation is already advanced, which may extend to the whole economy, and where the abuse of self-employment, short-term hiring and the absence of career prospects are common.












1.13.


It deems it necessary to increase the capacity to monitor, collect, compare and analyse data in order to understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes taking place in OSH, and it recommends that the EU and MSs adopt appropriate provisions.












1.14.


The EESC believes that involving workers in the integration of new technologies is crucial in line with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) (and any other applicable EU or national legislation), not only for successful application of these technologies, but also for a human-centric approach; it highlights that social partners can negotiate and agree on ways to improve information and consultation mechanisms to ensure this involvement, and urges them to take action to implement and – if deemed necessary – further develop the actions recommended in the 2020 Framework Agreement on Digitalisation. The EESC also urges the EC to monitor its implementation, in the framework of European social dialogue.












1.15.


The EESC is concerned about the privacy, ownership and security of data collected in the context of work and, noting that the EU already ensures a high level of protection, recommends that the Commission, Council and European Parliament adopt legislation on this matter at EU level and that this also address the transparency of algorithms. Electronic surveillance increases the risk of cyberbullying.












1.16.


The EESC believes that any form of electronic surveillance of workers that undermines their privacy through intrusive monitoring should be banned in the EU. It also underlines that electronic surveillance contributes to improved health and safety for instance in the field of transport, as well as to unbiased risk assessments on construction sites. Therefore, it recommends monitoring the effectiveness of existing EU and national legal instruments to this end and considering further measures where necessary.












1.17.


The EESC considers that promoting responsible and ‘trustworthy’ AI in the world of work requires a positive and enabling environment for social dialogue.












1.18.


Given that there are relatively few collective agreements that cover ethical issues relating to the use of AI (11), the EESC urges the social partners to play an active role in adopting a human-centric approach to AI deployed in a work context. It specifically recommends pushing ahead with negotiations on the proper regulation of AI in the workplace.












1.19.


It also calls on the European Commission to provide the social partners with the necessary means to cope properly with the new challenges of digitalisation, and of AI in particular, including capacity building and information and knowledge regarding the existing regulatory framework.




2.   General comments









2.1.


On 6 September 2024, the EU Minister of the Republic of Poland requested exploratory opinions from the EESC in policy areas of particular importance for Poland’s presidency.












2.2.


This opinion comes in response to the request for an exploratory opinion on health and safety at work – current and future challenges in light of traditional and new technologies, with a focus on AI.












2.3.


The EESC reiterates its agreement with the Draghi and Letta reports on the need to act urgently to increase the competitiveness of the European economy. It recognises the role and importance of AI in developing a fifth freedom of movement based on knowledge, innovation and research, and the more general need to boost the future productivity of the European economy by ‘vertically integrating’ AI in industrial processes (12).












2.4.


The EESC reiterates its understanding that, given the pervasive potential of AI and new emerging technologies, an approach aimed at avoiding negative outcomes for workers as a result of using these technologies is needed. Legislative initiatives should address gaps in the protection of workers’ rights in the workplace (13) and OSH provisions should be adapted to the new challenges posed by AI and ensure that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions.












2.5.


An OSH analysis carried out by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), has demonstrated that boosting OSH by means of new technologies is not a new idea, since technological advances have over the years brought improvements to OSH. The ways in which AI can reduce or eliminate risks include, but are not limited to:






(a)


providing managers and workers’ representatives with better information so they can identify OSH issues – including psychosocial risks – and areas where OSH intervention is needed to reduce a variety of risk factors such as harassment and violence, and to provide early warnings of hazardous situations, stress, health issues and fatigue in relation to tasks and activities carried out by workers;










(b)


giving workers and managers personalised, timely advice to bring about safer behaviour;










(c)


supporting evidence-based prevention and early risk assessment in workplaces;










(d)


supporting fact-based, more efficient and targeted OSH inspections;










(e)


harnessing the power of automation and robotisation in industry, logistics and construction to reduce the risks of repetitive and dangerous tasks;










(f)


using Internet of Things (IoT) devices and sensors to monitor work equipment in real time, thus making it possible to detect equipment faults and pre-empt equipment breakdowns;










(g)


using advances in AI and virtual and augmented reality to virtually test certain definitions and safety conditions;










(h)


applying exoskeleton research to relieve workers in the handling of heavy loads; significant progress is also being made in this field for workers with disabilities;










(i)


incorporating automated systems into supply chains to limit tasks involving the manual handling of objects;










(j)


using AI-enabled data processing to better design workstations and logistics processes in order to limit workers’ exposure risks (14);










(k)


furthermore, the ERO-foresight study mentioned in point 2.6 highlights one major benefit, due to the potential of digitalisation to boost automation: humans do not need to work in hazardous environments.
















2.6.


Digitalisation is having a profound impact on the world of work. The European Risk Observatory’s (ERO) foresight study on New and emerging OSH risks associated with digitalisation by 2025, carried out in 2018 (15), set out scenarios that ‘are narratives of what alternative futures might look like, built up from an assessment of how trends and drivers of change might influence the present to create each different future’. It pinpointed a number of challenges present in any digitalisation development scenario. However, it does introduce new OSH risks, in particular in relation to the nature of work:






—


psychosocial risk factors due to the organisation of work following introduction of algorithmic management and AI, as well as new business models and employment hierarchies which can also have an impact on current OSH management mechanisms; furthermore on psychosocial risks, the EU-OSHA carried out a meta-analysis of its publications on the psychosocial risks to OSH associated with digitalisation in 2024 (16). These were divided into six categories: i) job content and career development; ii) work intensity and job control; iii) working environment and equipment; iv) home-work interface; v) role in organisation; and vi) interpersonal relationships;










—


increased work-related stress;










—


ergonomic problems;










—


risks associated with new human-machine interfaces;










—


cybersecurity risks; and










—


loss of workers’ control over their data, data protection issues, ethics issues, patchy information about OSH, and pressure on workers’ performance.
















2.7.


The new risks identified by the ERO include labour market challenges with an impact on OSH, in particular:






—


an increasing number of workers treated (rightly or wrongly) as self-employed, who may not be covered by existing OSH regulations;










—


changes in business models and employment hierarchies due to increased online and flexible work and the introduction of algorithmic management and AI, which all have potential to disrupt current OSH management mechanisms;










—


workers who do not have the skills needed to use ICT, deal with change or manage their work-life balance; and










—


more frequent job changes and longer working lives.
















2.8.


Women account for only 33 % of technology jobs and 8 % of management positions. This means that gender stereotypes need to be addressed, as do the challenges that women face in male-dominated working environments; these include harassment and lack of access to finance.












2.9.


When workers do not know that they are interacting with AI systems, it may be unclear whether such tools improve human performance or encourage over-reliance on automated suggestions. In such cases, opportunities are also limited for employee involvement and for negotiations with their representatives on the introduction of AI (17).












2.10.


Robotics AI carries risks of over-reliance if the role of the robot is not clearly defined or if workers are not adequately trained to question or reverse decisions it makes. According to Eurofound case studies on automation, a crucial aspect revealed through interviews with workers in various work settings was some over-reliance on technology, which may contribute to a loss of opportunity for job crafting and a loss of skills acquired over time but no longer necessary following the automation of tasks. This means workers should upskill and engage in lifelong learning throughout their entire professional careers (18). In addition, such over-reliance can increase stress and generate a feeling of loss of control over one’s work. However, the Eurofound report on case studies and interviews with warehouse operators did not see an increase in work intensity nor stress levels. Finally, if robotics applications are not designed, developed and used in a way that ensures the human in control principle, the core position of the human being is compromised.












2.11.


The EESC considers its recommendation that legislation should address the gaps in the protection of workers’ rights at work and ensure that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions also to be applicable in the context of preventing OSH risks; it also considers that existing legal provisions relevant to the use of AI in the workplace should be backed up by explicit guidance concerning existing legislation (19).




3.   Specific comments









3.1.


The EESC maintains that preventing OSH risks is: key to ensuring decent working conditions over the long term, as enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; a right reflected in principle 10 of the European Pillar of Social Rights; and vital for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (20).












3.2.


It reiterates its concern about the lack of harmonised information, knowledge, comparable data and data collection about the actual OSH situation in the EU and MSs. It is convinced that such knowledge is essential for better risk prevention, improved policy design, application and enforcement and better monitoring of implementation and progress.












3.3.


The EESC considers that the new challenges linked to digitalisation mean that there is a greater need to build up the technical and human resources of labour inspectorates, which in many MSs have been shrinking in recent years, as well as to boost coordination, cooperation and training at EU level, which are essential if significant improvements are to be secured in enforcing OSH legislation (21).












3.4.


The EESC notes that, in a 2021 report on future EU OSH priorities (22), the Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC) acknowledges that digitalisation and new forms of work bring new challenges. SLIC notes that digitalisation can increase the efficiency of enforcement activities. It furthermore sees a need to broaden the knowledge and competences of labour inspectors.












3.5.


EESC repeats its recommendation that statistical tools and research be improved, relating in particular to AI, the use of industrial and service robots, the IoT and new economic models (23).












3.6.


The EESC reiterates that social dialogue is an essential tool for achieving three main objectives: anticipating and managing change in the world of work resulting from the green, digital and demographic transitions; improving the prevention of accidents at work and occupational diseases; and increasing preparedness for possible future health crises (24).












3.7.


It continues to recommend that a thorough and integrated prospective analysis of the impact of digital transition on the labour market be carried out in order to anticipate the transformations this transition entails and to develop a long-term OSH strategy (25).












3.8.


The EESC is aware that digital business models will increasingly define the world of work; it maintains that such models should be designed in a way that takes people and values into account. In a broader societal sense, the challenge will be to guarantee the digital inclusion of particularly vulnerable groups (26).












3.9.


According to EU-OSHA (27), AI at work raises OSH concerns relating to mental health at work and psychosocial risks. The EESC points out that the Commission’s strategic framework on OSH 2021-2027 focuses among other things on anticipating and managing change in the context of digital transition and urges all relevant stakeholders to give due weight to related emerging issues in the area of workers’ mental health.












3.10.


It reaffirms the proposal that the Commission launch legislative initiatives on mental health at work and on the prevention of psychosocial risks at work (28), and stresses the need to broaden the concept of OSH in order to adequately encompass well-being and psychosocial risk management.












3.11.


Given the direct link between AI and OSH, the EESC reiterates that the AI Act, the adoption of which it welcomes, stipulate that certain decisions remain the prerogative of humans, particularly in domains where these decisions have a moral component and legal implications or a societal impact, such as in the judiciary, law enforcement, social services, healthcare, housing, financial services, labour relations and education (29). The EESC underlines that the adopted AI Act, together with other existing EU legislation such as the GDPR and Directive 89/391/EEC and 2002/14/EC, include provisions regarding deployment of AI tools in the workplace, aiming, on one hand at safeguard of safe and fair working conditions of employees and on the other hand, involvement of workers in the deployment process of an AI tool.












3.12.


The EESC reiterates its recommendation that AI developers be trained in ethics in order to prevent new forms of ‘digital Taylorism’ from emerging, whereby humans are relegated to the role of executing instructions issued by machines (30).












3.13.


The EESC repeats its recommendation that it be mandatory for all high-risk AI systems – including some of those applying to work – to be subject to conformity assessments carried out by third parties (31).












3.14.


It believes that, if the digital divide is not bridged, then there is a risk that poor digital skills and the digitalisation of the labour market, combined with the replacement of low-value jobs with AI solutions, will increase the socioeconomic exclusion of people with disabilities.












3.15.


The EESC draws attention to the principle of non-discrimination. AI-based recruitment and job evaluation applications can be discriminatory if they do not take into account the specific issues encountered by people with disabilities and the common educational and labour barriers they face. There should be more efforts to make reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities.












3.16.


Using AI technology in human resources management can be detrimental to women and other groups who often face discrimination when AI tools are used that are based on historical practices and data. On the other hand, AI technology can be used to analyse gender imbalances and discrimination.












3.17.


Technology-facilitated violence and cyber harassment at the workplace are OSH risks; they are already mitigated by existing rules, whose enforcement must be a priority. Where an assessment of the effectiveness of the application and enforcement of the existing rules shows that it is insufficient, it should be improved.












3.18.


The EESC reiterates its recommendation that a study be carried out as soon as possible, involving the Commission, experts and social partners, to find the best solution for self-employed workers to have a safe and healthy work environment (32).












3.19.


Given that digital transition implies increased productivity and more efficient work processes, the EESC recommends that the Council, Commission and social partners monitor this process and adopt legislative and negotiated measures to ensure human control over work and the preservation of humane ways of working.












3.20.


The EESC is concerned about the increased OSH risks resulting from separation of work from a physical work station. It believes that responsibility for ensuring compliance with ergonomic standards and the provision of the right work equipment lies with employers and should continue to do so in the context of new forms of work, applying the same standards as for conventional work. It remains convinced that the 2002 European framework agreement does not address the new challenges posed by remote working and it therefore underlines its recommendation that new guidelines be developed, paying particular attention to the prevention of psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal disorders (33).












3.21.


A Eurofound study found that people working in their home office reported significantly better work-life balance than on-location workers (34). From a gender perspective, the EESC notes that, according to an EU-OSHA working paper (35), teleworking and the flexibility of remote working do have potential to improve work-life balance and the situation of women in the labour market. At the same time, teleworking has a disproportionately negative impact on women in terms of work-life conflict, stress and health outcomes, entailing the risk that traditional gender roles are consolidated and women’s unpaid care work is increased.












3.22.


A Eurofound study of a sample of working conditions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that remote workers are more likely to experience stress factors that can lead to lower levels of physical and mental well-being. With the constant presence of technology, remote workers often find it difficult to ‘disconnect’ from work (36). Although this is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.












3.23.


The right to disconnect is not a panacea. The EESC believes that regulation of the right to disconnect should be linked to measures that promote a culture of flexibility and autonomy among employers and workers, creating resources and support for remote workers and encouraging a healthy balance between personal, family and professional life. It calls on the Commission to free up resources to help achieve this objective.






Brussels, 26 March 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  
            OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1989/391/oj.

(2)  European Commission, COM/2004/0062 final.

(3)  
            Occupational safety and health (OSH) stocktaking summit conclusions – European Commission.

(4)  
            Occupational safety and health (OSH) stocktaking summit conclusions – European Commission.

(5)  Eurofound (2024), The changing structure of employment in the EU: Annual review 2023, Eurofound research paper, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

(6)  Cf. the European Economic and Social Committee’s contribution to the European Commission’s 2025 work programme.

(7)  European Commission (2024), The future of European competitiveness part B – In-depth analysis of recommendations, p. 232.

(8)  OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? Survey of Adult Skills 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.

(9)  
            https://www.bruegel.org/system/files/2024-06/Bruegel_factsheet_2024_0.pdf.

(10)  Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/14/oj).

(11)  Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

(12)  
            EESC opinion on the ‘Assessment of the Letta and Draghi reports on the functioning and competitiveness of the EU’s Single Market’ (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(13)  
            EESC opinion on the ‘Assessment of the Letta and Draghi reports on the functioning and competitiveness of the EU’s Single Market’ (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(14)  See also: Work organisation and job quality in the digital age – European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

(15)  Stacey, N.; Ellwood, P.; Bradbrook, S.; Reynolds, J.; Williams, H.; and Lye, D. (2018), Foresight on new and emerging occupational safety and health risks associated with digitalisation by 2025, European Risk Observatory.

(16)  Moja, F. (2024), Digitalisation and psychosocial risks. Accessible online at https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/digitalisation-and-psychosocial-risks.

(17)  Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

(18)  Eurofound (2024), Human–robot interaction: What changes in the workplace?, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p. 35 and 36 and also the other Eurofound studies quoted therein.

(19)  
            OJ C, C/2025/1185, 21.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1185/oj.

(20)  
            
OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.

(21)  
            
OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.

(22)  
            Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee, Opinion on future EU OSH enforcement priorities contributing to a renewed EU OSH Strategy
.

(23)  
            
OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 1.

(24)  
            
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.

(25)  
            
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.

(26)  
            
OJ C 374, 16.9.2021, p. 6.

(27)  Stacey, N.; Ellwood, P.; Bradbrook, S.; Reynolds, J.; Williams, H.; and Lye, D. (2018), Foresight on new and emerging occupational safety and health risks associated with digitalisation by 2025, European Risk Observatory.

(28)  
            
OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114, and 
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.

(29)  
            
OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 61.

(30)  
            
OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 1.

(31)  
            
OJ C 517, 22.12.2022, p. 61, and 
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.

(32)  
            
OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.

(33)  
            
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.

(34)  Eurofound (2022), Working conditions in the time of COVID-19: Implications for the future, European Working Conditions Telephone Survey 2021 series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, see fig. 76.

(35)  EU-OSHA working paper Exploring the gender dimension of telework: implications for occupational safety and health, https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/exploring-gender-dimension-telework-implications-occupational-safety-and-health.

(36)  Eurofound (2023), Psychosocial risks to workers’ well-being: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, European Working Conditions Telephone Survey 2021 series, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.




ANNEX
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions (Rule 75(3) of the Rules of Procedure):
AMENDMENT 1

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 2.4


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC reiterates its understanding that, given the pervasive potential of AI and new emerging technologies, an approach aimed at avoiding negative outcomes for workers as a result of using these technologies is needed. 
Legislative
 initiatives should address gaps in the protection of workers’ rights in the workplace 
[1]
 and OSH provisions should be 
adapted
 to the new challenges posed by AI and 
ensure
 that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions.


The EESC reiterates its understanding that, given the pervasive potential of AI and new emerging technologies, an approach aimed at avoiding negative outcomes for workers as a result of using these technologies is needed. 
Where necessary, appropriate
 initiatives should address 
proven
 gaps in the protection of workers’ rights in the workplace and OSH provisions should be 
applied
 to the new challenges posed by AI and 
it should be ensured
 that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions 
as described in the 2020 Framework Agreement on Digitalisation
.










[1]


EESC opinion on the ‘Assessment of the Letta and Draghi reports on the functioning and competitiveness of the EU’s Single Market’ (not yet published in the Official Journal).












[1]


EESC opinion on the ‘Assessment of the Letta and Draghi reports on the functioning and competitiveness of the EU’s Single Market’ (not yet published in the Official Journal).









Reason

The Framework Directive covers all OSH risks – including those from AI. The aim then has to be to efficiently apply the provisions and support Member States and social partners in these endeavours.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


88




Against:


130




Abstention:


10




AMENDMENT 2

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 2.7


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The 
new risks identified by the
 ERO 
include labour market
 challenges 
with
 an impact on OSH, in particular:


The ERO 
foresight study[1] listed some
 challenges 
that are likely to be present – although their extent and impact may vary – in the four scenarios that were defined for the purpose of the study and which could have
 an impact on OSH, in particular:










—




an increasing number of
 workers treated 
(rightly or
 wrongly
)
 as self-employed, who may not be covered by existing OSH regulations;












—




the
 workers treated wrongly as self-employed, who 
should be covered but
 may not be covered by existing OSH regulations;














—




changes in
 business models and employment hierarchies due to increased online and flexible 
work
 and the introduction of algorithmic management and AI
, which all
 have potential to disrupt current OSH management 
mechanisms
;












—




changing
 business models and employment hierarchies due to increased online and flexible 
working
 and the introduction of algorithmic management and AI 
that
 have 
the
 potential to disrupt current 
mechanisms for
 OSH management;














—


workers 
who do not have
 the skills 
needed
 to use ICT, 
deal
 with change 
or
 manage their work-life balance; and












—


workers 
who lack
 the 
necessary
 skills 
to be able
 to use ICT
-ET
, 
cope
 with change 
and
 manage their work-life balance; and














—


more frequent job changes and longer working lives.












—


more frequent job changes and longer working lives.








 










[1]






Stacey, N.; Ellwood, P.; Bradbrook, S.; Reynolds, J.; Williams, H.; and Lye, D. (2018), Foresight on new and emerging occupational safety and health risks associated with digitalisation by 2025. European Risk Observatory, p. 6.











Reason

It is proposed to make it clear that the list covers issues that the ERO foresight study listed as challenges that are likely to be present – although their extent and impact may vary – in the four scenarios that were defined for the purpose of the ERO foresight study and which could have an impact on OSHD. It is also proposed to use the exact wording from the ERO foresight study. Also, self-employed are outside the scope of the OSH regulation for a reason. Job changes and longer working lives are not risks.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


91




Against:


132




Abstention:


8




AMENDMENT 3

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 2.8


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




Women account for only 33 % of technology jobs and 8 % of management positions. This means that gender stereotypes 
need to be addressed, as do
 the challenges 
that
 women 
face
 in 
male-dominated working environments;
 these 
include harassment
 and 
lack of access
 to 
finance.




Women account for only 33 % of technology jobs and 8 % of management positions. 
According to the McKinsey article[1] women occupy only 22 % of all tech roles across European companies and it identifies two major drop-off points in the percentage of women in STEM: during the transition from primary and secondary education to university, when it drops 18 %, and during the transition from university to the workforce, when it drops another 15 %.
 This means that gender stereotypes 
and
 the 
different
 challenges 
linked to increasing the share of
 women in these 
jobs
 and 
positions need
 to 
be addressed.






 










[1]







https://www.mckinsey
.
com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/women-in-tech-the-best-bet-to-solve-europes-talent-shortage#/












Reason

It is regrettable that the text does not include a reference for the first sentence. We propose to add text (with a source) to bring additional information on the situation of women in the technology sector in Europe. Finally, the last sentence should be formulated more generally (and neutrally) to address the different challenges linked to increasing the share of women in these jobs and that supposed lack of access to finance for women is not related to either AI or OSH.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


100




Against:


128




Abstention:


12




AMENDMENT 4

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 2.9


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment






When workers do not know
 that 
they are interacting with AI systems
, it 
may be unclear whether such tools
 improve 
human performance or encourage over
- reliance on 
automated suggestions
. 
In such cases
, 
opportunities
 are 
also limited for employee involvement
 and 
for negotiations with
 their 
representatives on
 the 
introduction
 of 
AI[1]
.




According to a Eurofound report[1]
 that 
looked into case studies in three different companies, contrary to expectations, technology adoption did not increase work intensity in any of the three establishments. As regards the level of autonomy on the shop floor
, 
the results varied[2]. The report also states that ‘While
 it 
is recognised that new digital technologies have the potential to
 improve 
productivity, efficiency and accuracy, there are mounting concerns about negative side effects of new and emerging technologies for work and employment if they are not designed, developed and used in the workplace ethically’[3].












[
1
]


Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.














[1]






Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p.46.










 










[2]






In the Finnish establishment, the deployment of advanced technologies also increased the
 reliance 
of shop-floor operators
 on 
automation engineers or technicians to fix technical issues, which is perceived as reducing the autonomy of operators
. 
This has also contributed to a feeling of disempowerment among operators when technical problems occur
, 
as solutions
 are 
of a technical nature
 and 
are therefore beyond
 their 
competence. By contrast, in Wicro Plastics, with
 the 
tasks
 of 
shop-floor operators shifting to those associated with quality control, they perceive individual decision-making as having increased, as they more often need to assess whether a product meets quality standards. This has also created more interactions between operators and their line managers with regard to product quality control. See Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p. 46
.








 








[
3
]


Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
, p. 49
.









Reason

We still do not consider this paragraph to be linked to OSH. Nevertheless, if some text from the report quoted by the rapporteur is used in this paragraph, it should be clearly based on the findings of the report (based on the case studies).

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


105




Against:


131




Abstention:


6




AMENDMENT 6

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 2.11


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment






The
 EESC considers 
its recommendation
 that legislation should 
address the gaps in
 the protection of workers’ rights at work and 
ensure
 that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions also to be applicable in the context of preventing OSH 
risks; it also considers that existing legal provisions relevant to the use of AI in the workplace should be backed up by explicit guidance concerning existing legislation[1].






With a view to effectively supporting uptake of AI, in particular in SMEs, the
 EESC considers that legislation 
and guidance
 should 
be applied and enforced efficiently to ensure
 the protection of workers’ rights at work and that humans remain in control in all human-machine interactions 
while avoiding at all costs the introduction of additional and sometimes contradictory requirements as well as multiple reporting that leads to confusion. This is
 also to be applicable in the context of preventing OSH risks.












[1]






EESC opinion on ‘Pro-worker AI: levers for harnessing the potential and mitigating the
 risks 
of AI in connection with employment and labour market policies’ (not yet published in the Official Journal)
.






 





Reason

In chapter 1 of the opinion, it is clearly stated that we need to address Europe’s failing competitiveness by increasing AI uptake. As such, this paragraph has been amended to reflect the dual purpose: accelerating AI uptake and ensuring that the legal framework and guidance on it are used to ensure OSH while at the same time avoiding unnecessary burdens. We propose to delete the reference to SOC/803 as this opinion is particularly controversial as it has a counter opinion attached at the end (votes for the counter opinion 112/136/11, votes for the opinion 142/103/14).

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


101




Against:


140




Abstention:


11




AMENDMENT 7

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.10


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




It reaffirms 
the proposal that
 the Commission launch legislative 
initiatives
 on mental health at work and on the prevention of psychosocial risks at work 
[1], and stresses the need to broaden
 the 
concept of
 OSH 
in order to adequately encompass well-being and psychosocial risk management
.


It reaffirms 
its support for
 the Commission 
to
 launch 
a non-
legislative 
initiative
 on mental health at work and on the prevention of psychosocial risks at work 
in accordance with
 the 
Strategic Framework on
 OSH 
2021-2027[1]
.










[1]



OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114, and OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.












[1]



OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114, and OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.









Reason

The Commission plans to launch a non-legislative initiative in the OSH Strategic Framework. Furthermore it has launched the Comprehensive Approach to Mental Health, including the commitment to launch an initiative on mental health at work. These commitments should have the EESC’s support. Furthermore, as the objective of this opinion is to deliver an opinion on OSH as defined by the Framework Directive, and as indicated in paragraph 1.1 of this opinion, the Framework Directive is the gold standard for prevention. Thus, it is not appropriate to propose to change the definition of OSH.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


107




Against:


132




Abstention:


10




AMENDMENT 8

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.13


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
repeats its recommendation that it be mandatory for all
 high-risk AI systems – including some of those applying to work – 
to be
 subject to conformity assessments carried out by third parties[1].


The EESC 
reiterates
 that high-risk AI systems – including some of those applying to work – 
are
 subject to conformity assessments carried out by third parties 
or internally
[1].










[1]



OJ C 517, 22.12.2022, p. 61, and OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.












[1]



OJ C 517, 22.12.2022, p. 61, and OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50.









Reason

Given that the AI Act has been adopted, the paragraph should reflect the provision of the AI act. There is no reason to believe internal conformity assessments are not sufficient until proven otherwise.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


102




Against:


137




Abstention:


11




AMENDMENT 9

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.16


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment






Using
 AI technology in human resources management can be detrimental to women and other groups who 
often
 face discrimination when AI tools are used that are based on historical practices and data. On the other hand, AI technology can be used to analyse gender imbalances and discrimination.




If not done in accordance with the applicable rules, using
 AI technology in human resources management can be detrimental to women and other groups who 
may
 face discrimination when AI tools are used that are based on historical practices and data. On the other hand, AI technology can be used to analyse gender imbalances and discrimination.





Reason

It is important to note that discrimination based on gender or other arbitrary factors is not allowed under the current regulatory framework. Alleged harm can only come from non-compliance with the applicable rules and it is necessary to point this out.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


110




Against:


137




Abstention:


5




AMENDMENT 10

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.18


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
reiterates its
 recommendation that 
a study be carried out as soon
 as 
possible
, 
involving
 the 
Commission
, 
experts
 and 
social partners
, 
to find
 the 
best solution for self-employed
 workers 
to have a safe
 and 
healthy work environment[1]
.


The EESC 
notes that the 2003 Council
 recommendation 
[1] states in its recitals
 that as 
a general rule
, 
self-employed are not covered by
 the 
Community Directives on health and safety at work
, 
in particular Framework Directive 89/391/EEC
 and 
are therefore not covered by OSH legislation in certain Member States. The Council recommends that Member States promote, in
 the 
context of their policies on preventing occupational accidents and diseases, the safety and health of self-employed
 workers
, while taking account of the special risks existing in specific sectors
 and 
the specific nature of the relationship between contracting undertakings and self-employed workers
.










[1]





OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.














[1]




Council recommendation of 18 February 2003 concerning the improvement of the protection of the health and safety at work of self-employed workers.











Reason

Self-employed do not fall within the scope of the Framework Directive, as has also been made clear in the 2003 Council recommendation concerning the improvement of the protection of the health and safety at work of self-employed workers https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2003/134/oj/eng. It should be noted that the Council Recommendation recommends that Member States promote, in the context of their policies on preventing occupational accidents and diseases, the safety and health of self-employed workers, while taking account of the special risks existing in specific sectors and the specific nature of the relationship between contracting undertakings and self-employed workers.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


110




Against:


140




Abstention:


4




AMENDMENT 11

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.19


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




Given that digital transition implies increased productivity and more efficient work processes, the EESC recommends that the Council, Commission and social partners monitor this process and 
adopt
 legislative and negotiated measures to ensure human control over work and the preservation of humane ways of working.


Given that digital transition implies increased productivity and more efficient work processes, the EESC recommends that the Council, Commission and social partners monitor this process and 
support and enable digital developments while at the same time the Framework Directive’s (89/391/EEC) risk-based approach be applied to prevent widely recognised OSH risks that could arise from digital developments. The EESC recommends collection of information on different
 legislative and negotiated measures to ensure human control over work and the preservation of humane ways of working.





Reason

It should be emphasised that there needs to be an approach that supports and enables digital developments while at the same time ensuring that that the OSH framework directive is effectively applied to mitigate risks.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


103




Against:


136




Abstention:


7




AMENDMENT 12

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.20


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
is concerned about the increased OSH risks resulting from separation of work from a physical
 work 
station
. 
It believes
 that 
responsibility for ensuring compliance with
 ergonomic standards 
and the provision of
 the 
right work equipment lies with employers
 and 
should continue to do so
 in the 
context of new forms of work
, 
applying
 the 
same standards as for conventional work
. It remains convinced that the 2002 European framework agreement 
does not
 address the new challenges posed by remote working 
and it therefore underlines its recommendation that new guidelines be developed, paying particular attention to the prevention of psychosocial risks and musculoskeletal disorders[1].




The EESC 
notes that when teleworking some workers might spend time in unconventional workstations (at home, in public spaces not specifically designed for
 work
, etc
.
)
 that 
might not meet
 ergonomic standards
. The EESC stresses that
 the 
employer has overall responsibility for assessing
 and 
preventing OSH risks, whether the worker is
 in the 
workplace or working remotely on
 the 
basis of an agreement between the parties
. 
However, this poses a challenge when the worker is working from home or another place where the employer may not have control or access.
 It remains convinced that the 2002 European framework agreement 
is still valid to
 address the new challenges posed by remote working.












[1]







OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 50

.






 





Reason

The changes proposed aim to adequately reflect the different requirements that an employer has to meet and thus puts into context the assessment that, seen together with the rest of the applicable framework, the 2002 Framework Agreement on telework is sufficient.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


101




Against:


136




Abstention:


6




AMENDMENT 14

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.22


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




A Eurofound study of a sample of working conditions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that remote workers are more likely to experience stress factors that can lead to lower levels of physical and mental well-being
. With the constant presence of technology, remote workers often find it difficult to ‘disconnect’ from work
[1]. Although this is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.


A Eurofound study of a sample of working conditions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that remote workers are more likely to experience stress factors that can lead to lower levels of physical and mental well-being[1]. Although this is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.










[1]


Eurofound (2023), Psychosocial risks to workers’ well-being: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, European Working Conditions Telephone Survey 2021 series, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.












[1]


Eurofound (2023), Psychosocial risks to workers’ well-being: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, European Working Conditions Telephone Survey 2021 series, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.









Reason

We propose to delete this sentence as paragraph 3.21 shows that people working from home have significantly better work/life balance – while 3.22 points to the fact that a sample from COVID-19 had experienced stress factors. As such – on balance – we cannot say that difficulty with ‘disconnecting’ from work is persistent after COVID-19, where teleworking is to a much larger extent voluntary.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


106




Against:


138




Abstention:


2




AMENDMENT 15

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 3.23


Delete point







Section opinion


Amendment






The right to disconnect is not a panacea. The EESC believes that regulation of the right to disconnect should be linked to measures that promote a culture of flexibility and autonomy among employers and workers, creating resources and support for remote workers and encouraging a healthy balance between personal, family and professional life. It calls on the Commission to free up resources to help achieve this objective.




 





Reason

We propose to delete this paragraph as this is not OSH related. Besides, the right to disconnect is already covered in 3.22, which states that although this (disconnecting) is not aimed at OSH as such, the EESC takes note of the Commission’s Political Guidelines, which indicate that the Commission will be proposing the introduction of the right to disconnect.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


108




Against:


135




Abstention:


5




AMENDMENT 16

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.4


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




Digitalisation opens up opportunities and creates challenges at multiple levels; it can eliminate or reduce current risks, alter existing risks and pose new risks that need to be managed. This requires regulatory vigilance 
and, where necessary
, 
the adoption
 of legal and negotiated measures.


Digitalisation opens up opportunities and creates challenges at multiple levels; it can eliminate or reduce current risks, alter existing risks and pose new risks that need to be managed. This requires regulatory vigilance, 
implementation and proper application
 of 
the existing regulatory framework and can lead to the need to assess whether
 legal and
/or additional
 negotiated measures 
are needed
.





Reason

We propose to keep the text at a more general level while also referring to the implementation and application of existing rules. Furthermore, rather than referring to adoption of new legal or negotiated measures, the text should refer to assessing whether new legal and/or negotiated measures might be needed.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


107




Against:


136




Abstention:


4




AMENDMENT 17

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.6


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC underlines the need to take action at the right level to ensure that workers have the digital skills needed for the modern labour market. This is important to prevent the risk of deskilling
, with the loss of workers’ autonomy,
 the loss of 
their
 ability to carry out professional tasks
, and
 the 
risk
 of 
them being subjected
 to 
algorithm
-based and AI - 
based labour management systems
.


The EESC underlines the need to take action at the right level to ensure that workers have the digital skills needed for the modern labour market. This is important to prevent the risk of deskilling 
and
 the loss of 
workers’
 ability to carry out professional tasks
. Widespread deployment of AI will also benefit
 the 
ability
 of 
the managers and workers
 to 
improve OSH by strengthening unbiased and evidence
-based 
risk assessment, targeted OSH inspections and indeed help better identify issues (including psychosocial risks) where interventions are required. This includes better prevention of workplace accidents[1]. At the same time there are fears
 and 
concerns linked to more widespread use of
 AI 
in the world of work. These include, for instance, work intensification leading to increased stress, increased monitoring and control, lack of human oversight, loss of autonomy and acquired skills becoming quickly obsolete.






 










[1]






EU-OSHA (2021) Impact of artificial intelligence on occupational safety and health
.









Reason

While it can be justified to refer to the importance of digital skills in this context, it should nevertheless be made clear that the focus of this opinion is on OSH and the issue covered by the Framework Directive on Occupational Safety and Health 89/391/EEC (1) (the Framework Directive) and the benefits of AI in the field of OSH. The proposed changes also refer, on a general level, to the risks and fears linked to more widespread use of AI in the world of work.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


109




Against:


135




Abstention:


3




AMENDMENT 18

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.7


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC recommends that the EU 
and
 MSs 
adopt policies
 that 
guarantee
 all workers, 
especially
 e-platform workers
, lifelong
 training tailored to digital transition, 
human control over algorithms
, 
and information
 and 
consultation rights on the
 use of AI in 
work management
.


The EESC recommends that the EU
,
 MSs 
and social partners work towards ensuring
 that all workers, 
including
 e-platform workers 
(those who are employees) have access to effective and quality
 training 
for upskilling and reskilling purposes which is
 tailored to 
meet the challenges of the
 digital transition
. This means providing access to relevant training that responds to the needs of employers and workers
, 
in particular to help them make the best possible use of the digital technologies introduced. This is also important to ensure that the development
, 
deployment
 and use of AI 
always follows the ‘human
 in 
command’ principle
.





Reason

Firstly, the text needs to refer to the role of social partners as regards training, reskilling and upskilling. As the amendment proposed to the previous paragraph (1.6) refers on a general level to the risks and fears linked to use of AI in working life, it is proposed to also underline in this paragraph the importance of relevant training for ensuring the general goal that the development, deployment and use of AI always follows the ‘human in command’ principle.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


108




Against:


126




Abstention:


7




AMENDMENT 19

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.12


Delete point







Section opinion


Amendment






It draws the attention of the Commission, Council and social partners to the need to adapt labour regulations in line with the risks of job insecurity and precariousness resulting from business models in sectors where digitalisation is already advanced, which may extend to the whole economy, and where the abuse of self-employment, short-term hiring and the absence of career prospects are common.




 





Reason

We propose to delete the whole paragraph as it is not linked to OSH. According to the Polish Presidency’s request for this exploratory opinion, the outcome of the opinion was described as follows: ‘The development of OSH issues must take place in parallel with scientific and technical progress. We ask the EESC to provide its views on possible directions for the development of occupational safety and health issues in the light of the changing world of work associated with scientific and technical progress.’
         

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


99




Against:


132




Abstention:


5




AMENDMENT 20

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.13


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




It deems it necessary to increase the capacity to monitor, collect
, compare
 and analyse data in order to understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes taking place in OSH, and it recommends that the EU and MSs 
adopt
 appropriate provisions.


It deems it necessary to increase the capacity to monitor, collect and analyse 
comparable
 data in order to understand the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes taking place in OSH, and it recommends that the EU and MSs 
support the relevant agencies in their work based on
 appropriate provisions.





Reason

We propose to specify that what is needed is comparable data and that the EU and the Member States should support the relevant agencies in their work based on adopt appropriate provisions.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


108




Against:


136




Abstention:


4




AMENDMENT 22

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.15


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
is concerned
 about the privacy, ownership and security of data collected in the context of work and, noting that the EU already ensures a high level of protection
,
 recommends that the 
Commission, Council and European Parliament adopt
 legislation 
on this matter at EU level
 and that 
this also
 address the transparency of algorithms. Electronic surveillance 
increases
 the risk of cyberbullying.


The EESC 
notes concerns
 about the privacy, ownership and security of data collected in the context of work and, noting that the EU already ensures a high level of protection 
including through the GDPR. It
 recommends that the 
existing
 legislation 
be properly and effectively implemented
 and 
applied, including the provisions of AI Act
 that address the 
issue of
 transparency of algorithms. Electronic surveillance 
may increase
 the risk of cyberbullying
, which is covered by the Framework Directive
.





Reason

The text should indicate that the provisions of EU legislation such as the AI act should be properly and effectively applied.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


109




Against:


140




Abstention:


1




AMENDMENT 23

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.16


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
believes
 that any form of electronic surveillance of workers that 
undermines
 their privacy through intrusive monitoring 
should be
 banned in the EU. It also underlines that electronic surveillance contributes to improved health and safety for instance in the field of transport, as well as to unbiased risk assessments on construction sites. Therefore, it recommends monitoring the effectiveness of existing EU and national legal instruments to this end and considering further measures where necessary.


The EESC 
notes
 that any form of electronic surveillance of workers that 
is not carried out in accordance with the applicable rules, for instance by illegally undermining
 their privacy through intrusive monitoring
, is
 banned in the 
EU. The EESC notes that applicable rules in the
 EU 
already address the issue, for instance in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the provisions in the GDPR regulation (2016/679) on legitimate interest, consent and transparency as well as Article 4 of Directive 2002/14/EC on information and consultation with the requirement for information and consultation on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation
. It also underlines that electronic surveillance contributes to improved health and safety for instance in the field of transport, as well as to unbiased risk assessments on construction sites. Therefore, it recommends monitoring the effectiveness of existing EU and national legal instruments to this end and considering further 
supporting
 measures where necessary.





Reason

It would be incorrect to imply that intrusive monitoring is allowed in the EU today, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to privacy and there are strict provisions on when data can be collected and processed in the GDPR regulation. Also, if substantial changes to the work organisation are proposed, this would be subject to information and consultation in accordance with Directive 2002/14/EC. This proposed amendment reflects this.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


104




Against:


137




Abstention:


4




AMENDMENT 24

SOC/818 – Health and safety at work


Point 1.18


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment






Given that there
 are 
relatively few collective agreements that cover ethical issues relating
 to the 
use
 of 
AI
[1]
, the
 EESC urges the social partners to play an active role in adopting a human-centric approach to AI deployed in a work context. It specifically recommends pushing ahead with negotiations 
on
 the 
proper regulation of
 AI in the workplace.




According to Eurofound, ‘greater efforts
 are 
needed
 to 
build
 the 
capacity
 of 
national social partners to deal effectively with issues arising from the digitalisation of work. The European social partners’ 2020 Framework Agreement on digitalisation is an important instrument for coordinating such efforts and promoting the exchange of information with a view to mainstreaming digital ethics into collective bargaining and social dialogue’
[1]
. The
 EESC urges the social partners 
to continue
 to play an active role in adopting a human-centric approach to AI deployed in a work context. It specifically recommends pushing ahead with negotiations 
at
 the 
appropriate level – when deemed necessary by social partners – on addressing
 AI in the workplace.










[1]


Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.












[1]


Eurofound (2023), Ethical digitalisation at work: From theory to practice. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.









Reason

We propose to use a direct quote from the Eurofound report which confirms that the social partners’ Framework Agreement lays out principles agreed upon by social partners on the issue of human-in-control deployment of AI at work. The amendment also highlights the importance of capacity building.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


111




Against:


131




Abstention:


5






(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1989/391/oj).



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2958/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)