 Hello everybody, thank you so much for being with us here at the World Economic Forum. We're talking about workers in focus. My name is Jamie Heller. I'm the business editor of the Wall Street Journal and I'd like to introduce the other members of our panel here, Judith Weiss. Weiss, forgive me. Chief People and Sustainability Officer and Member of the Managing Board at Siemens. Christy Hoffman, who's a General Secretary of UNI Global Union, Switzerland. And Duncan Crabtree Ireland, who comes to us from Los Angeles. National Executive Director, Chief Negotiator at the Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. Which I think to say is you've been the Chief Labor Advocate for the actors in Hollywood. Yes. That's a fair, that's a fair statement. So I appreciate everyone being here and we'll talk for a bit and then turn it over and turn it into a Q&A. Technological progress has always marched on. It's really nothing new, but we have quite a few prognosticators saying that what we're facing right now is different. It's happening faster. It's affecting more people, different types of people. And it's like nothing the world has ever seen. And so what does it mean for workers? There's been quite a few prognostications. And Christy, I just want to start with you. Do you think this is like a whole different level or is this just more of the same the world's been through before? Kind of of two minds about that. Because on the one hand, over the past 10 years, there's been a lot of technological change at work with algorithmic management and a whole series of digital changes that have already changed the world of work. So to some extent, we've already seen some things happening. And then on the other hand, Gen AI presents opportunity to really change work, but I don't think we've seen it in action in too many industries yet. We've seen there's a big study about call centers, of course there's the creatives and I'll let Duncan talk about that, how it might be used in those industries. But otherwise, it's still at a little bit of a try it out stage. And I know the predictions are for 40% of all job tasks could be affected. We've heard that prediction 10 years ago in connection with digitalization. So I'm a little bit of a skeptic, but willing to embrace that that may be true. I think it will be big. I don't disagree that it will be big, but I also would be a little more cautious than saying we're seeing it everywhere. Because not so much with Gen AI yet, yet. And in terms of the yet, do you have any view of, OK, last year Davos, chat GPT, and now it's OK, what's really going to happen here? But do you have a sense that things might accelerate faster than in other technological shifts or you're still a little skeptical? No, I think it will. And I think algorithmic management, you know, it is very intense. There's been a lot of debate about that, but it doesn't really make add productivity. It's really just, you know, making workers go harder and faster. It doesn't really give that augmentative. He doesn't augment the worker in the same way that Gen AI does. So I think it will be bigger than some of the technology we've seen over the past 10 years, but, you know, we still have seen a lot of it creeping in, right, in fairly big ways in some industries. Duncan, you just went through historic labor movement in Hollywood. You were with the actors, but the writers and actors kind of together. What is your assessment of AI? Is it like, wow, this is coming on fast and furious? Or just like, oh, it's just another issue in the negotiations. No, I mean, it was a really important issue in our negotiations. And I think our members and all of us recognize that generative AI in particular has already started to be used as it relates to actors in our industry. So I don't disagree with anything that Christie just said, but I think that our members are going to in particular be on the cutting edge or the tip of the spear in this area, especially voice actors. As an example, because the technical requirements of using generative AI with voice only are easier and that makes it faster and simpler to implement. And that's why it's been so crucial. I mean, just last week at the Consumer Electronics Show CS in Las Vegas, we announced a new agreement with a company called Replica Studios specifically about putting protections in place for voice actors who are going to work through digital replication and video games. And so I do think it's going to have a significant impact and presence in the creative industries in general and film, television, video games, the industries our members work in, music industry as well. But I think one of the things that's so important for us to all remember and our members talked about this all 118 days on the picket line last year is decisions about the implementation of AI are not being made by AI, they're being made by humans. These are things we can decide and it doesn't have to just be corporate executives who make that decision. This is a decision we should all make together. Workers should have an important role in participating in that decision making and society should have an important role in that. And I think the creative industries are one example of an area where, you know, if we don't have that kind of human centered approach to the implementation of AI, we run the risk of really losing the heart and soul of the creative industries. The whole their whole reason on that. So I think that it is really important to recognize we bear responsibility for those decisions and we have control over them. Do you feel you actually had to take to the picket line to get corporations to come to the table on that? So in your heart, do you feel like the leadership of big companies are on board with that assessment? Because, I mean, obviously you had to strike to get them to talk to you about it on other issues. You're right. You're absolutely right. I mean, I hope that this is evolutionary and I hope that other big companies see what happened and learn from it, frankly, because the reality is, yes, those companies didn't want to talk to us about AI on June 7th when we started, but when we went on strike and, you know, when we were on strike for almost two around two months before those conversations started, it became evident that that was that had to happen. And the CEOs of those companies came to the table and had those conversations with us, which is not the norm. You know, in our industry, it's much more common for other types of execs to do that negotiating. The CEOs came to the table because it was obvious that this had to be addressed. And in the end, we have 16 pages of our agreement that are about AI. And I firmly believe that two and a half years from now, we'll look back at this. And those companies will say, yeah, you know, these are things we have been able to work with. This hasn't hampered us. And our members will say this is what gave us the level of trust and confidence to be able to come back to work even with this technology in place. So I hope that other companies learn from that experience and say, you know, we should talk to our employees. We should talk to our workers and do this together instead of forcing this kind of disruption. That our strike, you know, our strike along with the writer's guild, because as you mentioned, as both of us, I mean, this strike costs the industry more than six and a half billion dollars. And in a lot of ways, it wasn't necessary. A lot of ways this could have been worked out without it. But in other ways, it couldn't because the companies weren't ready until we got to that point, until they tested our resolve. And now, hopefully, others will learn from that. I mean, Judith, as someone in business, do you think companies are going to learn from something like this? Or, I mean, there's so much tantalizing held out about how much productivity they're going to save from all this new technology and how much of the conversation do you think there will be? It was very hard to generalize for every business out there. And I think there are some cultural differences that enterprises choose, but also maybe some cultural differences in terms of where you're traditionally grew up as a business. If I, as a Germany headquartered business, Siemens has a long tradition of social partnerships with works counts, with the unions. We do a lot of things very proactively together. Siemens has a history of 30 years in industrial AI. So generative AI is new for us, but AI as such is not. And we have a workforce that spans from people on the shop floor through to 1400s AI experts in the company and everything in between. So therefore, I agree with, I think, we need to segment the workforce in terms of how much is going to be impacted both in terms of activities that could be falling wayside from a productivity efficiency perspective. But there's going to be a lot of complementarity that AI brings to roles, take coding, take software developers. There's going to be a lot of complementarity that AI is going to bring to those roles. And for us, it's really exciting. And for our customers, it's really exciting because if you think about a shop floor environment, it really allows your robots to come out of the cage because you can now speak with them. You can now program them there and then. And so for us, it's an evolution in many regards of what we've done, but I do think that the speed of what comes at us is going to be much faster than what we have seen with digitalization in general. And if I could just give you one very, very pragmatic example of what we've done together with our works councils, we've developed something that we call AI cards. So we actually try to provide transparency on where AI is baked into the process, is baked into a tool, so that we really create some transparency early on how technology finds its way into workflows, into skills, et cetera, et cetera, so that we can proactively think about the impact and whether or not there is something to be mitigated. So you talk about these affecting jobs across the spectrum, including white color. And Kristi, do you feel like sort of the intelligency is a little more up in arms about this because it's a little more personal than it had been before? Well, I mean, I just, I've come from manufacturing originally, and of course we were dealing with negotiating around new technology a lot in the 80s, let's say, when it was really coming in and there was a lot of alarm at that point. And then having seen digitalization creeping along, I agree, it's been rather slow despite all the alarming predictions some years ago. There's a bit of that sort of the media being extremely hyped about it because it is the higher professions. But I would argue some of the workers who are actually heavily impacted by Gen AI right now are in low page call center workers. It's the first big study, and I think the author of that studies here in Davos is call center workers where they've been using a GPT and large language model for a few years. And so they can take a look at that and see what the impacts have been. And bank workers in banks who aren't necessarily the intelligentsia. So it isn't only hitting the lawyers of the world. I think graphic design artists, for example, they're not necessarily that, if you were freelance graphic design artists, you're worried about where are you gonna get, where are you gonna make money right now? So we see it in our industries. I mean, I represent a lot of white color workers in finance and IT and customer service, broadly speaking, which will be probably one of the hardest hit numerically sectors of the economy. And by hardest hit, maybe not. And to some extent, some of the call agents like the complimentary of the AI and the customers are happier and fewer people yell at them. So there have been a lot of upsides that we've observed, but we just wanna make sure that it's implemented in a way that has guardrails to respect their health and safety in terms of how much faster, how fast they have to work and also that the gains are shared. What we don't wanna see is sort of exacerbating inequality by getting these productivity bumps from some low wage workers, some higher wage workers, but none of it really. It's just goes to the bottom line. It just doesn't go to remunerate them. With that increase in productivity, workers should get some share of that gain. So that's another concern we have, is that where does it go? So let's talk about what labor can and should be negotiating for, whether it's in conversations or more antagonistic situations, because I've seen everything from, we're gonna meet every two years to discuss and then there's also you all, you got some specific things about compensation, right? So can you, why don't you start us off, Duncan, what are the range of things and what do you, in your experience, how ambitious should labor be in those discussions? I think you should be as ambitious as you need to be in order for your workers that you represent to feel confident that they are in a work environment that respects them and where it's safe for them to do this work. And I think, I say safe for them to do this work intentionally because one of the great fears that workers have with generative AI is just full-on replacement of their role. And so I don't think that fear is always justified, but it is often present and needs to be addressed. And so that's something that we obviously considered in framing our proposals, the concepts that we really built around it and some of this is more specific to the life of a performer had to do with what we called informed consent and fair compensation. And informed consent really revolves around the fact that when you're talking about performers, you're talking about using someone's image, likeness, voice, or performance that they created. And so there is a, that is a unique experience to have your face or voice used in that way. And I've worked at the union for 23 years, I experienced this myself during our ratification campaign for this contract. Someone created a deep fig of me arguing against the ratification of our contract, which obviously I did not agree with, seeing as how I had negotiated it and was strongly encouraging people to ratify it. And it's one thing to talk about it intellectually, it's another thing to see your own face and your own voice saying things that you don't believe. And so those are the kinds, so I guess what I would say in response to your question is this is specific to each type of industry, each type of worker, what's important to them and what affects them most needs to be addressed. And that's why it should be a dialogue with employers and workers so that those specific needs get taken care of. And in the beginning of your question, you said this could be confrontational or it could be more of a discussion. It should be more of a discussion. I mean, I'll be the first to, I mean, going on strike, having that kind of environment isn't the best way to reach an agreement or a consensus. And I think the idea of the kind of German model of industrial relations is wonderful. And sadly, we don't have that largely in the United States, so that's not our experience. But we did start out trying to negotiate this. We spent 35 days bargaining over these terms before a strike was ever called. And I think that should always be the first hope is to resolve these things through negotiation and discussion. No one gets everything they want, but you actually find that path. That's the goal. But if it doesn't work, then at least in the United States, our remedy for that is industrial action or right to strike. And obviously sometimes you have to use it. And Duncan brings up the idea of feeling replaced, but Christy, you don't feel that's, like, it's that big of an imminent threat right now. I'm imminent with the workers we represent, probably not, but I don't say we won't eventually have some displacement. I think clearly in the industries I represent, it's more likely to be an attrition or not a, like, let's lay off 5,000 workers and suddenly replace them with a bot. I don't see that happening. But I think there will be ultimately some displacement of some workers. There's no question about that. But in terms of what we would argue should be foundational and anti-bargaining, first of all, there's notice, which you would see that in almost every agreement on technology, is that the union, the worker, should be put on notice that there's a plan to implement new technology, some transparency, whether it's 90 days or longer, some ability to engage in assessing what are the risks to health and safety, to replacement, to job security, what training is needed, who gets, you know, who's assigned to work with the new technology, all of those things, including, you know, if it's an algorithm, is it going to be discriminatory, is that baked into the algorithm, and how much surveillance? And surveillance is really, among all the issues right now for the workers I represent face, it's the surveillance, which has become so intense, especially since around 2019, you know, the surveillance tools have really grown. So we negotiate no nonstop surveillance, no surveillance for purposes of discipline, or all kinds of guardrails on surveillance, but I do think nonstop surveillance is inherently unsafe, and we've negotiated with even global employers on surveillance. But I think that going back to the basic framework is really about getting notice, getting a risk assessment, and then sitting down and talking about how you're going to manage those risks, and, you know, we want workers to embrace technology and think it's great, and for some, it will make their jobs a lot more fun and more creative and get rid of the crappy tasks that they don't really enjoy doing, and, you know, that could be the upside, is the jobs could actually be better. But I think, again, within an environment where they're not afraid that they're gonna, that there are all these other negative consequences. So that's the purpose of having that bargaining, which I recognize in Europe, that's kind of baked into your model, and I'm not everywhere in Europe. I think specifically in Germany with co-determination, but in the US and in many other countries, it really involves having collective bargaining explicitly. I think, I mean, in the US, it seems almost like a bifurcated economy because this is very low unemployment, and we had over 20 major work stoppages last year, and a lot of very successful ones. But at the Wall Street Journal, we were writing about layoffs every day, and like thousands, and I'm sure you all saw, Citibank is gonna reduce by 20,000 people, so, you know, these profit pressures are real, and like 90 days is good, but if you lose your job at the end, like, that's tough. So, I mean, what are you putting into place at Zeeman's to try to do the best you can to preserve opportunities for people and keep people? Yeah, and I think that's a really important point because I think it does depend on what your starting point is. Whether you want a purely transactional relationship with your people, or whether you think that you're actually in it together for the long run. I mean, Zeeman's has been around for 176 years. We want a long-term relationship with our people, and we want to make them successful because we think our success depends upon the collective capabilities that we have in the organization as well. So our starting point is that we want this to be a mutual relationship for the long run. And so therefore, what we're trying to do, and I think this is also part of my role as people in organization, is to help anticipate, and to then also be transparent about trends and developments that we see. And not everything will lead to job security for everyone all the time. But I think the more that you can be prepared and the more that you can prepare people for this, I think that the more chances you have of actually making this mutually successful. And if you think about other challenges that are out there and that hit different countries in different ways, demographic change is one of them. In Germany, we're going to lose 15% of the workforce by 2035. Now, AI is not going to heal all of that, but it is a contributing factor to mitigating that. And so for me, it's all about, where can we invest in people's capability so that we can take them with us on that new technological journey? And where can we also use retirements, et cetera, to phase out? And I think the more you have tools and practices around really being able to anticipate that and plan for that together, the better. I'll give you a very specific example around AI. We have a methodology that we call NextWork that really helps sites, helps parts of functions, helps parts of the business to project however long they can see. Maybe three to five years about what does this part of the organization need in terms of capability? What kind of shifts do they see? How much of that do they think they can develop? How much of that do they think they need to buy off the market? And do they see a population going into retirement as well? And then we translate that into learning paths for people. And partly we've even invested into truly adult education and gone all the way out to reskill people that is not always necessary, but a certain degree of upskilling is. And there is a business case to that as well. And of course it relies on the fact that people are willing to learn, and we will have to do that for 45, 50 years in careers. And this is where technology, like AI, does put a different spin on things. Shelf-life of knowledge is what, five, 10 years. So we will need to train that muscle of learning together in a safe place for much more than we maybe ever have done. And the more we can lower the barriers of doing that and getting into the habit of. What kind of barriers? Well, I mean, the longer you are in a role, the more you probably feel threatened by things that change that role significantly. If you keep on your toes, if you keep learning, if there's an environment that induces that, I think the preparedness for things that come are much, much greater. So we very often talk about resilience and relevance, because very often we just talk about the technical functional skills. We don't talk about the readiness. And I think there is increasingly a realization that we need to invest in skills like learning to learn, adaptability, creativity, collaboration. Those are the things that will equally prepare people for a career that is meaningful and that will keep people relevant for the job market. And quite honestly, if they're relevant for the job market, the likelihood that they're relevant for Siemens is pretty high. How would you grade corporate global corporations on doing what you're saying they should be doing? Sorry, say that again. How would you grade global corporations on leading in the way you're saying they should be leading? I think as always, and I think COVID was a totally different example of showing the good and the bad. I think that there is a lot of companies out there who are very, very vested into their workforce and where there is no antagonistic relationship at all. And then of course, there are companies and there are people who will go for the next dollar to the next place. So I think you will have a complete bifurcation here as well in terms of the really good ones and the really not so good ones. Do you wanna jump in on that? I mean, no, I agree with you. I mean, we see, for example, in finance, when you just pointed out Citigrad Bank laid off workers, I mean, the workers in the US in banking don't have a union and so we're not as close to the granularity of their situation, but in Europe they do. And they've been going through job losses for a very long time because there's e-banking has been the cause of it, not AI but not generative AI. But the employers have been, and again, I'm talking really more about Europe, but very eager to do, there's been a lot of retraining, there's a lot of bit early retirements, attrition. I mean, there's all kinds of ways of reducing the workforce, which they've had to do, I think they've lost during a 10-year period, something like 300,000 jobs, but gradually. And it was done with really thoughtful exchanges and figuring out who wants to upskill. I mean, not everybody does. A lot of people took early retirement. And we see this now also retail, like people who sell fashion in an H&M or a Zara or any, their jobs are completely different now from what they were five years ago. They have to, or maybe eight years ago, but they really have to have digital skills. They have to be able to look and see, is this in another store? Can I order this? Can I take the returns? It's a completely different job than it was when you go and you pick what you want and you pay at the cashier. And some people, ooh, I don't really want to learn all that, but mostly, the willingness to really get into the digital skills that you need to have to even be in retail right now are pretty strong and most of the companies are very eager to retrain. Because loyalty, culture, and sort of valuing your staff, I think that's an important feature of good employers. And we've seen a fair enough of that to recognize that it's not the edge. It is more common than you might think. And I think there's something important around terminology as well, because one of the things that we started to shift is to go from job security to employability. Because job security pretends like you can protect something forever and keep it unchanged, which of course is totally unrealistic. Employability means if we agree that we're vested, then we can make sure that the proposition you have and that you personify is something that is going to be meaningful going forward. And I think that's a very different conversation because rather than protecting jobs, you're actually enabling people. And for me, that changes the game. And we have had a really good conversation with our social partners about this in Siemens as well to get there. And there are even projects that we do together with the Works Council where we fund parts of the workforce that come to us and say, we would like to be invested in. So we even do this together. And I think that builds trust as well. I'm going to turn to the audience in one second, but I just want to ask Duncan, what is it like talking with other labor leaders in the U.S. right now? The UAW just came off quite a successful, also relatively long, but quite a successful outcome. Are you all chaining information now? How are you looking into 2024? And what is the learning from quite a number of strikes across a wide array of industries? Yeah, I mean, there's always been a collaboration. I mean, there's a Cold Labor Movement for a reason, but we have definitely been trying to just work together better than ever. Certainly in the industry that I work in, the media and entertainment industry, the unions in our industry are united and collaborating in ways that has never happened before. And frankly, it was actually kicked off by the pandemic and the need for us to work super closely to try and bring the industry back from a state, the industry was shut down for six months in the United States. Saw the rules about safety and testing. Exactly, and that gave us a chance to really build that skill set of collaboration and that has continued on. And so the Teamsters, the IA, the crew unions are set to negotiate this year. And they certainly are counting on and they can expect to receive the full support of SAG-AFTRA and the other unions that negotiated this year. So yeah, absolutely. And I do think that we all recognize, we just had a summit on this topic last week, as I mentioned at CES in Las Vegas. And I think we're all very clear on the importance of really looking down the road as this technology comes, seeing where it's headed and working together with employers to put contracts together that can actually allow the employers to do what they need to do. Workers want to work, they wanna have jobs, they want their employers to be successful. I'm sure Siemens workers are the core of Siemens success. And that's true for all of these businesses. So workers want to work together, like Christy said with employers, but they also have to feel respected and they have to be respected. And so as AI comes forward, that's what we have to do, just bring it in, focus on the human-centered nature of it, and remember that ultimately AI should serve us, not the other way around. So if we can make that work, then I think there's a very bright future for worker and employer collaboration with respect to AI. Anybody in the audience here? We could just say who you are and they're putting the mic on, sorry, I caught them by surprise, thanks. It's better now, yeah. In Francisco Camacho I work from FEMSA, which is a global retailer and soldering bottleer with over 300,000 collaborators. But I guess that the question is for Siemens specifically, because 170 years is a lot. And in 170 years, I mean, there have been a lot of transformations. I mean, if you go back in time, I mean, I guess that from electricity, I guess that I don't know. I mean, a bunch of things. Telegraph. Telegraph. Telegraph. I mentioned a bunch of others. And Siemens is still there and providing jobs. And I guess that beyond what is happening punctually right now, which can be artificial intelligence today, just as it was internet a few years ago, would you mention two or three principles that companies could follow to keep providing the jobs, but at the same time growing as a corporation? Because I think that 170 years has proven to be whatever you are doing is proven to be successful. Yeah, I think one of the successes of Siemens is clearly the passion for technology. So rather than letting other people inventing new technology, I think we've always been at the forefront of that as well. I have to say that we have not always been super successful in commercializing that in the way that we should. I think Siemens claims to have invented the internet. But clearly we have always been there in terms of building great technology and bringing that to customers. I think that's the other thing. We understand customer industries and technology and I think that combination has made us really, really strong. But even if I go to something that is more closely to our topic today, I think Siemens, like some of the great companies that are as old as we are, has always been strong in social innovation as well. So if I think about things like benefits for people, education for people, I think Siemens started their first type of apprentice program in 1898. So these things are deeply, deeply ingrained in the culture and the culture of really caring for people without being too paternalistic I think today in terms of culture shift. But the commitment that people and technology go together, I think that is very, very deeply ingrained. And I think today what we need to be mindful of is the speed by which things change and to what extent things are tipped into very different type of business models as well. So what we're discussing today a lot is how do you actually orchestrate ecosystems much, much more. And that comes with very, very different business models to the past as well. So, but those are, I think those are part of the DNA that has made us strong and that will hopefully secure another 176 years easily as well. I saw your CEO at CES on television. Yes. You deliver the opening speech. Is there any other questions or comments? Just let us know who you are. Hi, my name is Dan Biederman, affiliated with the Schwab Social Entrepreneurship Group here. My work has largely been with workers in supply chains and currently we're doing venture capital to help build sustainable and resilient supply chains. And I guess it's a little bit of a diversion from the topic you've all been discussing, but the vast majority of workers don't have representation from unions and don't work for responsible multinationals. How do you wanna make sure either you work with your suppliers or other partners or with other actors, such that the kinds of concerns that you're articulating here optimistically can be resolved in the US or elsewhere, can also be at least addressed or not completely disruptive in parts of the world where supply chains have been essential to economic growth, economic development. Can I, if I may, Dan, I think that's a great question. I'm really glad you asked it because one of the things we hadn't touched on yet was sort of how you do put together a comprehensive set of protections for people because there are and always will be some people outside of the coverage of collective bargaining or with employers who maybe aren't that responsible or who are affected by this technology outside of the regular employment relationship. And so from my point of view, there's a mosaic that's needed. Collective bargaining is one part of that mosaic, but public policy is another very important part. I know in the United States we've been working very hard to try and move things forward. Obviously the EU has been doing quite a lot on AI. And I think that that is gonna be absolutely essential. Just as one example, the deepfake that I mentioned that was made of me, that wasn't done by an employer. It wasn't done by anyone I had a contractual relationship with at all, and yet it was very abusive. And our members have suffered that in terms of deepfake pornography for a number of years using the earliest iterations of this type of technology. And so these are things that ultimately norm setting, public policy norm setting governments, and in my view at the international level too, needs to happen as a compliment to collective bargaining and social education and social dialogue in general. It's like which level should be responsible and what you're saying is the way all levels. I do think, just as one example of this, we're having a very vigorous debate in the United States about the question of the entitlement of AI companies to take content that they find from various sources on the internet without any kind of permission or authorization from the creators or rights holders and use that to train AI systems. And so obviously there's a bunch of litigation about this. There are very divergent views about what's right. What's fair use and what needs to be compensated. That's gotta be answered and that is a question that's only gonna be answered in my view through the public policy sphere. That's not something that's gonna, I mean it's been answered in individual cases through contract because there have been licenses done. Some AI companies have licensed content for that purpose but mostly they haven't and they're never all going to do that voluntarily. So it is a question that's gonna have to be addressed in public policy. I mean I think that's one of the reasons that things aren't gonna happen as fast as some of these predictions because there's gonna be lawsuits and there's gonna be union activists. And yeah, in my industry, the New York Times or one of our arrivals just sued open AI about their use of journalism. So there's a lot of sand being thrown into the wheels there. It is and I have to admit from a labor point of view I find there's always some irony in this because it's like when I get told by tech companies big tech companies that the internet needs to be free and information needs to be free while they maintain non-public sources of their own. They don't release source code to their own AI systems or other things. What's good for the use doesn't always seem good for the gander. There are companies that are suing people that are also themselves deploying AI in aggressive ways as it relates to their own workers and their own creative talent. So I think it's good for us to take a broader perspective on this and realize that in terms of respecting the rights of creative people, creators and those whose work even if they're not creative, their work has gone into what is now being used to build these empires. I think that needs to be taken into account and needs to be fairly addressed. So I sure hope that the litigation process that's going on ultimately reflects that. Could I jump in on the supply chain question just from another angle because I sense from the question you're also thinking about low wage workers who are perhaps in other kinds of even contact center workers could be an example. That's mostly it. I mean, I think one thing is there is the doctrine that of holding companies responsible for their supply chain, human rights due diligence, which is becoming the law across Europe and hopefully eventually the United States and hopefully eventually we'll have a international convention on that, but there is supply chain responsibility for human rights and the right to have a union and collective bargaining fall within that remit. So especially Germany is on the front line right now. So Siemens, I'm sure tell you that they're responsible for at least the first level in their supply chain to make sure they have their fundamental rights respected. So part of ESG effectively, right? I mean, in terms of companies being responsible for sustainability and their environmental impact. But it's a law in Germany, so they could be sued if they're not, I mean, or brought, you know. But it goes back to the point we've been discussing. I mean, for companies who have the right values called of Connacht guidelines, supply audits, that is maybe not so relevant, but I think it does take, as in sustainability in general, it does take strong institutions as well to secure that. And for Siemens, the numbers are big. Our tier one supply is at 65,000. So 40% of that is customers actually as well. But of course, you know, the further you go into the upstream value chain, the harder it is to really be, to make sure that we get the right level of visibility, but we do that through supply audits. Do we have time for one more question? Yes, okay. Thank you. Victoria Lee, I'm a public health preventive medicine doctor that's running the second largest health system in Canada. My question is around, you know, I think there's assumptions about how AI technology is going to help us actually get rid of the work that we don't wanna do, and therefore free up kind of the expertise working at the highest levels. And I say that with the review of, if we look at industrial technological revolution thus far and what's happened, we humans find ways to do mundane lazy or not as productive work, whether it's email, whether it's social media, whether it's other things. We find ways to do that. And sometimes I find in health, we use this all the time. And I've been thinking about it a lot around team-based work. We're trying to get you to work at the high scope of your practice. And emergency doctors will come and say, but we don't want to just see hard things all the time. We need a bit of a break in our brain to be able to see the hard things with some of the easy things that there's a mix. I wonder about that. Like is that even a good goal to have? Like we need a little mental break, right? It's more of like, is that even a realistic goal? Because I'm concerned that humans have found ways that give us that kind of break, whether it's binge watching to social media to all of the things that we currently email. So that's not that. I mean, I could say we did a story about call centers and AI. And that's one of the things people say is actually it's good for us to have like not every task be the hardest task and we need a mix of tasks. So it's a good point. They really like writing up the reports on the calls because it's easier than taking the calls. And one thing AI has done is take away that report writing because AI can write the report quicker and easily and the workers are saying, but that was like a little break from going from call to call is having that space to do that. So I mean, I think that's a valid point. And that really comes into productivity and how far you can push people. And yeah, but they do like that. Probably depends also on the nature of your work. And I think this goes to the point of this is why these things should be customized to the individual workforce and workplace. Because if I had an AI to take a speech that I wrote and make it into bullet points, I would treasure that as opposed to me having to do that myself. But others might not see it the same way. And I think that's one of the things, especially folks who are very devoted to a particular type of career activity and who really wanna do that. I'm very familiar with that because most actors are that way as one example. They obviously don't want the acting job to be taken away by AI. If there are parts of that that can be done that are less desirable aspects of that, then that might be fine. But you can't take away the core creative element because that's really where the passion is. And so I realize not every job is the same and that's why I do think it needs to be so customized to the particular workforce and workplace. We are time. Thank you so much. It was so interesting and I really appreciate everyone's participation. So thank you so much. I hope everyone has a good week. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.