By Danny Parys
Recently, 11,000 workers at Global Consulting firm Accenture lost their job. The reason? According to CEO Julie Sweet, they didn’t have a viable path to reskill on artificial intelligence.
How she determined that all 11,000 weren’t fit for retraining remains a mystery. Did anyone ask them? Did anyone ask the 20,000 UPS workers who lost their job to AI if they had the requisite capacity to be upskilled? What about the 5,900 now former Cisco employees displaced by automation? Will anyone ask the next tranche of soon-to-be former employees if they’re ready to embrace new technologies before they get locked out of their company emails?
If recent history is any indicator, I doubt it.
So much uncertainty surrounding AI and its impact on jobs has many Canadian workers asking themselves, “who’s next?”
As they should. Because as Canadian productivity stalls, and with 60% of Canadian workers in roles at risk of AI driven job transformations, business leaders, and even the Prime Minister, are champing at the bit to automate workforces.
With so many livelihoods at stake, it’s clear that the Canadian economy needs to make bold changes, not just to ensure that the productivity gains of AI and automation are realized, but that workers are consulted first.
Getting the balance right will be tricky, and to do so, mandated codetermination must be the first step.
Though a relatively innovative concept in Canada, codetermination, the term used to denote worker representation on corporate Boards of Directors, has long been codified in law in many European countries.
In a nutshell, codetermination models ensure that workers take an active role in corporate governance and have a say in major company decisions.
In Germany, where codetermination laws are among the strongest and most studied, law mandates that workers make up at least 50% of board directors for all companies with over 2000 employees, and at least 33% of all directors for firms with 500 or more employees.
While skeptics of the model often fear that too many workers in the boardroom will prevent businesses from being as agile responding to market changes, discourage innovation and prioritize unsustainable salary increases, the reality of co-determination shows quite the opposite.
Instead, Germany has become famous for its high skilled economy, and has become a leader in automating their production systems. Efficiency has become a German stereotype, and data from firms with a shared governance structure suggests that they invest more into their production systems, and outsource less, while having a neutral effect on wage growth.
Though data surrounding AI rollouts remain scarce, initial studies suggest co-determination models promote more worker consultation prior to technological implementation. In these instances, employees are consulted before new technologies are implemented, and in some cases management is obligated to provide a digital implementation road map, allowing workers and management to discuss, and negotiate, the impacts that technology will have on employment and productivity before it is implemented.
The result of a more consultative strategy when it comes to technology and automation implementation in the workplace means that German firms with co-determinative governance models are less susceptible to layoffs, and value worker stability, while having no negative impact on business growth or investment.
As the early impacts of AI begin to displace workers, making countless job skills obsolete, workers are starting to worry if they have the right skills for today’s economy. Retraining and upskilling employees will become a priority.
With codetermination, and more workers involved in corporate governance, businesses will be more likely to develop reskilling plans internally and more likely to redeploy talent in other parts of their organization, as opposed to exiting employees at the first sign of productivity gains from AI.
The alternative, if Canada persists with the status quo of corporate governance, means we must get used to mass layoffs, high unemployment and the fruits of new technologies going to a select few: Those deemed “viable for AI upskilling.” Whatever that means.
Share with a friend
Related reading
Elbows up: Keeping Canadian companies in Canadian hands | Policy Options
Blue Jays pride notwithstanding, many of Canada's most iconic companies and brands have been quietly but steadily purchased by foreign entities in recent years. As Danny Parys writes in Policy Options, policymakers should do more to keep Canadian companies in Canadian hands by providing more support to expand financing opportunities, expanding awareness of untraditional ownership models and beefing up Canada’s net-benefit review requirements. These quiet foreign sales not only lead to major frustrations for consumers, but workers also feel the impacts because, as corporate leadership moves further away from the community, so do quality and accountability.
You can’t be sovereign if you don’t own anything
Gas station giant Parkland is already shedding Canadian employees in the wake of TX-based Sunoco’s recent takeover of the Canadian fuel chain, which owns 15% of our gas stations and a key refinery in Burnaby, B.C. These layoffs were a predictable outcome of Ottawa's decision not to flex its new regulatory muscle through the Canada Investment Act to quash foreign investment deals that pose an economic security threat. As SCP chair Jon Shell writes, there’s a real danger that the government will continue this sell-off of Canadian companies to foreign investors—and that this sell-off will be considered a “win” for the government’s economic growth strategy. This would be a mistake.
Reflections on Budget 2025: Economic growth alone won’t save us
Budget 2025 includes hopeful initiatives that will deliver real benefits to working Canadians at this time. In this reflection, SCP CEO Matthew Mendelsohn explains that, strategically, we really like the Budget’s focus on industrial strategy, some tentative steps on making more capital available to a wider diversity of Canadians and commitments to loosen the grip that our oligopolistic sectors have over our economy. However, we are concerned by the lack of a strategic approach to providing more working people and young people a path to wealth, ownership and economic security. While the Budget responds to the wish list that corporate Canada has articulated for several years, there are no guarantees that they will indeed step up to invest—or that those investments will produce growth that benefits working people and communities.