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
Ontario wakes up to the succession tsunami
In November, 2025, the Ontario provincial government finally stepped into the looming “succession tsunami,” launching a modest $1.9M Business Succession Planning Hub to help micro-business owners plan exits through local Small Business Enterprise Centres. Notably, the hub spotlights employee ownership and the new Employee Ownership Trust, signaling a shift toward mainstream adoption. But, as Dan Skilleter writes, Ontario’s approach focuses narrowly on retiring owners, ignoring how different buyers shape risks and benefits to workers, communities and Canada's broader economic sovereignty. This is a promising start that could and should grow into a broader succession-planning policy that protects Ontario’s long-term resilience.
Mapping the economic centre-left
The large and well-funded American blogosphere has a pretty wide array of economic voices and ideological camps within the centre-left tent. So big, in fact, that there’s a sub-genre of inter-blog conflict dedicated to people named Matt. Over the years, SCP Director of Policy Dan Skilleter has found it useful to categorize these various different centre-left ideological camps in his head. The categories are not mutually exclusive, and most people probably identify with a few at once. This explainer breaks down each camp's story about what’s wrong with the economy and how they’d prioritize dealing with it.
How intergenerational inequality threatens trust in democracy | Policy Options
Our political leaders must be willing to make difficult tradeoffs to rebalance policies toward the young and away from older Canadians, write Jean-François Daoust, Liam O'Toole and Jacob Robbins-Kanter in Policy Options. The broader economic picture for younger Canadians offers little hope, and economic frustration is shown to run hand-in-hand with political alienation. As intergenerational inequality persists and deepens, Canada risks experiencing an even sharper decline in trust in its democratic institutions than what already exists. Building affordable housing and supporting young families are essential first steps in a much-needed generational reset that puts fairness at the centre of Canadian political life.