 Good morning, everyone. I'm Ann Marie Slaughter, the CEO of New America. New America is a think and action tank dedicated to renewing the promise of America by unlocking the potential of its people and the power of its ideals. I'm delighted to be welcoming you to this conversation about technology and job quality. And I'm delighted particularly to be joined by Kay Firth Butterfield, who is the executive director of the World Economic Forum's Center for Trustworthy Technology, and she and I will open today's webinar. So since 2021, the Center for Education and Labor at New America, which we call CELNA, and the World Economic Forum have undertaken a research and storytelling project that is led by our joint fellow, Shailen Jotishi, to ensure that workplace technologies that are rooted in AI and also other emerging technologies make jobs better, not worse. We hear all the horror stories of the robots coming and automation taking over jobs. This is a project to look at how you can harness those technologies to create better jobs. And this really builds on a long commitment at New America to realize a future of work worth building, a future of good work, of good jobs. And we've long been committed to both understanding and promoting the ways in which we can maximize the benefits of technology while mitigating the risks. So just one recent example this past February, New America and Bloomberg revisited the findings of our joint shift commission on work workers and technology, which Bloomberg beta and New America undertook five years ago. That commission engaged over 100 leaders in business, technology, policy, academia and civic organizations, and surveyed over 1000 Americans to study and anticipate what the future of work in America would look like. And you can see the reference in the chat to that report. At that point, we were looking at how would there be more work or less work, would there be more tasks, or more jobs because you could imagine a future of less work and it's all tasks, and you could imagine a future of more work and all jobs, but the likelihood would be somewhere in between. And that is those are still questions worth asking but in the meantime, certainly generative AI and other emerging technologies have come have really emerged faster than any of us, I think, expected. And at the same time, of course, we've had the pandemic and lots of changes in work habits. We are, we affirmed a number of the findings of that shift commission, but now we're really looking more at augmentation than automation. And that's very important. The augmentation the question is what are we going to augment. It looks like an opportunity for both employers and workers to benefit, but only by design. It's not going to be naturally that way in headline after headline we've seen new workplace technologies like algorithm algorithmic management, making jobs harder, trying to cram in every last hour and ways that make schedules highly unpredictable, also sometimes more dangerous and infringing on civil liberties, or particularly having a damaging impact on black brown and other marginalized communities. So we began this work long before chat GPT and other tools came onto the scene, but today, those headlines are are ever more present and the urgency of this project is ever more present. So our goal is to find ways that these technologies can be a win win, both for workers and for employers. And we are really delighted to be doing this in partnership with the World Economic Forum, which has its own tradition as you'll hear of looking at work and the future of work. And so, before I turn it over to Shailen Jotishi to kick off our first panel. I want to turn to K for butterfield to welcome you on behalf of the World Economic Forum. Thank you. Thank you, Amarie very much and thanks to all of you who joined us for this important conversation today. As Amarie said, I'm K for butterfield and I'm currently the executive director of the World Economic Forum Center for the fourth industrial revolution which focuses on trustworthy technology. But previous to that I was head of AI at the World Economic Forum, and in that capacity was also head of this work that we have been doing with New America, and particularly with Shailen. I just wanted to tell you a little bit about you know what's the Center for trustworthy technology, because we will be hoping to continue this work that we've been doing with New America and Shailen into the future. And although obviously Amarie and everybody is talking about generative AI, generative AI isn't the only cutting edge technology that is actually needing to be trustworthy as we approach the approach the next stage of humanity. So one of the things that we particularly want to be able to do is to have these conversations these essential conversations around what does it mean to be human in the next 10 and 20 years. How do we work comfortably with technology of all sorts of different kinds. And how do we plan today for the what we want to what we want our society to look like in the future. We will be, as I say we're brand new. So we will be creating a lot of these, a lot of these closed conversations of the right people to hopefully move that move the policy forward. I will say with companies to help them see that actually it's profitable, and it's purposeful, and it's the right thing to do to think about trustworthy use of technology trustworthy design of technology, and trustworthy development of these technologies and of course I echo all of Amarie's wonderful comments, and we have been delighted to have this partnership with Shailene New America. So you may be asking why is this project important, why do we need to be focused on ensuring that the workplace technologies rooted in AI, AR, VR, and advanced robotics improve job quality, advanced trust. And also improving productivity and savings costs. So, beyond what Amarie so thoughtfully talked about. I just wanted to say, saving productivity and costs really isn't everything. I know at the moment it could be seen as everything because companies are in difficult financial situation and we are potentially in a, in a financial crisis. But to ensure the use of technologies which help cost cost and increased productivity, we shouldn't just be focusing on, well, this machine can do the job of 10 people. So what is much more important for our society and for humanity is how does this machine work with this human being, and ensure that this human beings job is more satisfactory, and more satisfying to them as a human being, but also reduces those productivity and cost savings. I think it's important as well that we think about how workers should be reassured. This is actually enhancing the work and not stealing their jobs appointment and Marie made so so eloquently earlier. And that workers should actually enjoy their jobs more and be more productive because they're working with these technologies. And cutting edge tech, you know, it's vital to their successful, it's, it's successful integration into society, not just the workplace. If workers are worried that it goes worried then that worry actually feeds out beyond the workplace, leading to the general malaise about tech. One of the things that you know worries me perpetually is that so many of these new cutting edge technologies can benefit humanity so much if we get them right. But if we don't get them right, then the backlash could be significant and we'll lose those benefits. So, that's why the Center's delighted to be involved in this work and continuing yet. And we're going to be looking at the care of age populations using AI and robotics as well as AI and healthcare generally. So this piece of work that we've been doing is absolutely foundational for our further conversations and the production of frameworks and guidelines from which we can try and plan a better future for all. And with that said, it's my absolute pleasure to introduce you to our panel moderator and the project leader, Shailen Jotishy, I'm sorry Shailen, I must have said your name 100 times and now I can't. So Shailen is the future of work fellow at New America and a fellow at the World Economic Forum. He also serves as senior manager of the Burning Glass Institute. His mission is to solve public problems concerning the workforce, education, policy, technological innovation and their intersections. Shailen was previously visiting scholar in science and technology policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he co-authored a forthcoming book on science policy that will be published by MIT Press next year. And I'm sure that we're all keen to read it. He also served as a program director at the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities as CEO of the Journal of Science Policy and Governance, and held policy roles at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the University of Michigan. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, Politico, Forbes, The Financial Times and a variety of other outlets. He graduated from the University of Georgia and Arizona State. So Shailen, on to you for a wonderful panel. Thanks so very much Kaye and thanks very much Ann Marie and thanks very much to all of you for joining us for this discussion. I'll go over a quick housekeeping notes before we dive into our main events. Over the course of the discussion, we invite you to share your reflections on Twitter or LinkedIn using the hashtag better future of work. Additionally, please share your questions in the chat, we'll be collecting them and we'll respond to them during the Q&A segment after our panel. As Ann Marie and Kaye very eloquently summarized, today we have the great privilege of hosting one of the first dialogues around our joint project to really ensure that workplace technologies are a win-win for workers and employers in the US and beyond. As both referenced this work has evolved quite a lot since we began this journey at the height of the pandemic, but our mission remains unchanged. In this work, we aim to help convene the communities understand the issues, elevate the voices and tell the stories that will serve as an unlock towards a future of work worth working. For those of you who are not familiar with this project, I will drop the link in the chat and hope that this conversation inspires you to engage if you wish to do so please feel free to reach out. We're at a key inflection point in which the human decisions we make today concerning the technology and the use of those technologies will lead us either to a future in which the average American, the average person will experience work in a way that advances meaning and makes jobs better, easier. Yes, makes us more productive but as Kaye said, there is a happier and engaged in this thing we call work, this thing we spend most of our waking hours doing or preoccupied with or preparing for by way of education and training all throughout childhood. Or we could inherit a future in which we have very different reality. Too often, we've seen technologies have quite the contrary effect, tech can just as easily make jobs worse as they can better. So today, we have a great group of thinkers and doers to add their insight and wisdom in helping us understand what steps policymakers and technologists, labor leaders, business executives, and others must take in order to design for workplace tech universe that can achieve this win-win balance. Without further ado, we'll introduce our panel. And as a reminder, hashtag better future of work to share your reflections on Twitter, LinkedIn, feel free to tag our panelists and questions can come into chat. First up, we have be Covello, who is the director of emerging technologies that Aspen digital, a project of the Aspen Institute. B is a technology and facilitation expert was passionate about creating social change by empowering everyone to participate in the process of social and technological governance. Previously, they were a tech policy advisor in Congress and before that led research on fairness and transparency and important for our discussion. AI is impact on labor at the partnership on AI. They were a senior engagement lead for IBM Watson, and among many esteemed hats was a product director at exploding kittens now well known card game startup. Thank you for being here with us. Next, we have Tom Koken, the post tenure George Maverick Bunker professor at the MIT Sloan School of bit management and a faculty member at MIT Institute for work and employment research. Dr. Koken's research has long served as a bedrock for us in the tech and labor space with a focus on the need for a new social contract at work, one that can anticipate the technological and social changes in a way that builds towards a more inclusive economy and towards shared prosperity, which was part of the topic of a book that he published in 2021 on shaping the future of work. Thank you very much for being with us Tom. And finally, we have all the way from Europe. Christina Colclough founder of the why not lab, a consult a consultancy that serves trade unions governments and public service organizations on others. A fearless optimist Dr. Colclough background is in labor market research and in the global labor movement, where she led their future for policies and advocacy and strategies for a number of years. I'm the author of the Union movements first principles of workers data rights and ethics of AI, among many other trusted positions. Thank you very much for being here with us Christina. So without further ado, we're going to dive into our discussion I have some questions for panelists and then we'll again opened up for a Q&A so please feel free to drop your questions in the chat. So I'd like to do a quick temperature read of our panel and for those of you in the audience again, please feel free to engage in the chat. You can say I agree I disagree. Panelists, please raise your hand. If you believe that in five years time. The average American worker will enjoy improved working conditions and job quality as a result of the impact technology is made on their jobs and technology in this scenario includes AI or VR advanced robotics to full gamut. Let's see. Yeah, so see if folks in the chat would like to engage. Clearly our panelists have views. So, how about in 10 years time. Well the job quality for average American worker be improved due to the impact of technology on work. Raise your hand. So in the five to 10 year horizon of visa in the maybe cap. All right, so really, it really depends on whether we change how we do this so that's what we should get at how to make sure that we improve the quality of jobs. We all have views on that but it starts by having workers have a voice in the early stages and in designing these technologies so it's not will it happen it won't happen, unless we change the conditions under which technology is being brought in right now so we're getting ahead of ourselves, but I think the question was too much. Well, will it happen on its own. So that's a great segue for my first question which is for you Christina. Christina you've been deeply involved in helping labor unions worldwide build capacity to deal with workplace technologies. Could you give us a brief state of play, how are unions grappling with new workplace technologies are they prepared. What's working well what are the pinch points into Tom's point, you know, what's the opportunity for elevating worker voice here but love to hear your thoughts. So, thank you and thank you really for having me is it's an honor. So, firstly, I think we have to recognize that what the labor unions are against is a total neglect of the labor market significance in the digital age. Our politicians are willing to regulate the market but they are very unwilling to look at the effects of these technologies on the labor market. So they're up against that and then secondly they're up against sort of that they don't know what they don't know that any of us who spent time with technologists we realize you know like small windows in the brain are being open because can technology really do this, can it really track and monitor this and this and this. So when you're kept in the dark when you don't know what you should know then of course building response becomes even more difficult. The unions are really taking on board this this whole agenda about digital technologies, how it's affecting workers rights, human rights, but also importantly how it's affecting having immediate effects here and now, but also in the algorithmic influences become the truths that future workers are omissioned against. So, stunningly, maybe not surprising to many of you, but it's the same narratives it's the same sort of things that they're backing against across workplaces in the United States to South Africa to Europe to Asia Pacific to Latin America. What they're doing very much is getting to understand the basics of these technologies so they can understand the means of the harms that are being created. The moment they understand the means is the moment they then can go in and as many of you have mentioned so far, start co governing or co designing these technologies. And for all of that to happen, we need transparency. And, you know, just two weeks ago I was in Canada and spoke for 600 people working in public services and I asked them, have any of you been told in the clear language, which digital technologies or algorithmic management systems, your employers are using none of them put their hands up. So we need transparency. So we know what we need to know so that we can begin to form the response and that has to be a mandatory transparency. So, I think unions are really taking this on board against all odds and with very very little support to be honest with you because a lot of the narratives are industry driven and the industry sort of lobbyism is very strong. And they're doing that and they're doing that across the world and of course, where the impact of digital technologies can be slightly different in various geographies. Many of the challenges are the same. Absolutely. Tom, reflecting on Christina's responses and you know your initial comments as well. A Gallup poll from last fall revealed that public support for unionization in the US is at a record high since 1965 and we've seen landmark unionization efforts at a surprisingly diverse set of new industries which I should add think tanks to the category, America's unionized in fact, and you and Roy Bahat, head of Bloomberg beta, good friend of ours have written about the need for business leaders to really change their tune to managing an organized workforce and being more collaborative to work with voice entities. First off, how has the workplace technology conversation around AI and chat GPT impacted how business leaders think about unions and worker voice and then. Secondly, what needs to happen, either from a policy perspective or strategy perspective in order to move the needle on getting businesses and later to partner to achieve a win win scenario for workplace technologies that are adopted. Thanks and thanks everyone for this remarkable panel and good discussion. I always learn a lot from Christina about these issues. I'm delighted to build on what she just said and let me start with that, because she made two points one workers and their unions were educated about what these technologies do. That's the first thing and then number two, there has to be some transparency over what these technologies are going to do are being designed to do. I don't think we're as far as we would like to be. I think I agree with Christina, the labor movement in general and some specific unions are very much invested now in learning about the technology so I think the first phase that that lesson of learning about them is underway everyone knows this is important. But what hasn't happened is we haven't had dialogue about how do you bring worker voice into the technology design process into the first phase of deciding what's the problem. What are the opportunities that we're asking these technologies to to solve for us. And I think that's where we've got to change our institutional arrangements. We've got to make sure that workers do have a voice. I don't think the average CEO, even understands these technologies better than workers do, and the vendors, the developers of these technologies have not even thought about the, the need to bring workers and their representatives into the process. So it's up to us to set up the conditions and set up the opportunities for those dialogues, and it has to start early on. You can't wait until as in the United States unions negotiate over the effects of technologies on wages and working conditions. That's too late. We have to get involved right up front in the design phase. And there's lots of evidence from the auto industry in the 80s through the it industry in the 90s through healthcare research and other research both here in the United States and elsewhere, that when you bring workers. And when you into the process and when you design the technology in parallel in combination with designing changes and work processes. Then you get the big payoffs to productivity and innovation and acceptance by the workforce of the technologies. But if we go the standard way of keeping the secret, having technologists design the technology around the problems they think are important. Then you get over investment and technology and weak productivity and innovation results. So we've got to create the processes. Now I'm not waiting for government to do that. I think we should be bringing business leaders and labor leaders together, and we should be supporting that dialogue and helping to raise the right questions and asking them. How do they want to move forward. And that should happen at an industry level, and it should happen at a firm level, but I think it's our obligation to create those opportunities and we're prepared to do that at MIT. And so are lots of other places but we've got to make sure that we get this dialogue and we don't leave workers only to be reassured by CEOs that they will be okay. They won't trust that, and they shouldn't trust that they shouldn't be reassured they should have a positive, strong and well informed voice in the process of designing these and implementing these technologies. Absolutely, Tom, I really appreciate of the comment on identifying intermediaries or platforms in which business leaders and unions can come together and have some discussions around these topics, even in lieu of governance and public policy that would enable those and be this is a great segue to my question for you, you know, Tom mentioned the need to really bring the worker voice upstream to the point of technology development and, you know, of course, before workplace tech can never be debated by by bosses and it needs to be created first and you've worked across the AI space both as a policy specialist and a technologist. It's no small question be, but what should policymakers be prioritizing right now when thinking about regulation and governance of how these technologies are created and adopted. Are there any successful legislative or policy approaches or ideas, visions that you've seen in your work. Yeah, it's a great question. I will maybe challenge the idea that the tech has to be developed before it can be debated I think, you know, to Tom and Christina's great comments. There's so much value in co determination in employee governance and frequently that means defining what success looks like before building the tools and so I think that there is a lot of opportunity. There is a lot of leadership from workers who really understand their work environment and their goals to be able to say hey these are the things that would be helpful to me so I just want to name that but you're absolutely right that policy plays a tremendously important role in kind of shaping the ecosystem within which technology is developed and and I want to name to that. There are so many proposals right now like 100% honesty here. I kind of feel like it's been a DDoS a denial of service attack on on the system in that there are so many great things that governments around the world are considering working on as it relates to AI and automation that like I frankly cannot keep track of all of them. So it is, it is a testament to how important these issues are and how much I think the world has really woken up to the the potential for good and for bad of these tools so there's a lot out there but there are some things that I think are really promising so you know, as Tom had alluded to and actually partnership on AI put out a great AI and job quality insights document where they engage your frontline workers about what they need and what they want and and we see that that workers do appreciate technology when it helps them to do their work and doesn't threaten their job so I think that in that context, one area of policy that we see the action in is in avoiding harms how do we make sure that when technology is introduced as Christina and Tom alluded to that there is transparency, not just in what the tech is doing but what it's trying to do what are the projects what are the goals how do we define success. There's also a whole conversation and I know Christina can speak on this with with so much more fluency around kind of the data and surveillance and quantification of workers there's a lot that policymakers can do. And we've seen already some action around data privacy and data rights, being an act and an area of work that governments can put some real beef behind. I'd also love to think not just about how do we avoid harms but where are places where governments can actually take actions that might incentivize good behavior that might actually promote positive science and I think that there are a couple of different areas where experimentation and some early leadership is really needed so one thing is we know that these technologies can be disruptive to jobs we know that that can you know that the wonderful increased efficiencies that can come from technology can sometimes mean you need fewer workers to do a task than you previously needed to. So one place where policy and governments can take action in making that less threatening to workers is making it easier for people to change roles, giving people better safety nets decoupling essential things like healthcare from our connection to our employers. Another area where they can maybe shift that dynamic is thinking about what you know what the larger financial ecosystem is incentivizing the effective tax rate on technology on capital is lower than that on labor which means it pushes companies toward, you know to save money it's cheaper to use automation, then to continue to value the workers who've been doing those jobs so there might be opportunities to explore changing the way that capital and labor are taxed. And then finally I think that, you know, a lot of these systems we we're coming up with ways of measuring success we pay attention to, you know, the quarterly revenue numbers or the jobs report. One thing that we don't have as much agreed upon metrics for and I think that policy leadership could really could really be a strong indicator on is how do we measure and track job quality. How do we not just pay attention to how many people are employed, but the quality of that employment and how do we honor and celebrate the places where job quality is really succeeding and where companies and and workers are coming together to develop ways of using technology that really support people's work and well being. And I think if that we can create better leading indicators there will have a better ecosystem of technology development, which then can as you said be debated by the bosses and workers and everyone else in the ecosystem. Absolutely be I really appreciated the last comment you made there on on metrics and indicators I'd be remiss if I didn't say that this work we've undertaken began as part of an OECD panel that we had organized with the OECD is a I team in 2020 and Irene Conway from the Aspen Institute was one of my panelists for that and had raised a similar similar notion and you know it just goes to show that there's still a great need for that. I'm going to open this question up to the full panel setting one but yes Christina please weigh in. I can't help I have two of my most favorite people Tom and be here and I just really want to comment back on some of the things they said but also with a little wink in my eye challenge some of the things. Several of you have mentioned we should increase productivity or increase productivity is a per natural goal. We're reducing ourselves to hell in this planet, maybe and I want to pick up on what be was saying maybe we need to change the metrics. When is a company evaluated as doing good or doing bad. And productivity doesn't have to be the measurement that the market judges these these actions again so I want to challenge that I think the future work could be a work that it's not organized around productivity as the soul measure of success so to speak. And then something that that Tom alluded to and this was how do we really take note of that the management labor labor management relationship is really changing into a three party relationship. And that's labor management in deploying companies and then the developers, the developers who oftentimes have access to the data who maybe even offering data analysis back to the deploying company. It's getting quite messy, it's messy waters, but the only body in all of that who's really losing out right now and it's losing bargaining power other workers. So I think we need and this is picking up on what be was was answering to we really need to focus on mandatory inclusive governance, ie that these technologies ex ante ex post must be governed and they should be governed with representatives of those are subjects of these systems at the table I in the case of the workplace to workers. I'm very much in agreement with what Tom said that that we have systems where, what is their purpose what you know what were the instructions to the systems who's defined them. Unfortunately, the developers who's defined, ultimately the purpose for that even management is losing out right. So inclusive governance I think is something that we should demand by law. Unfortunately, it is not in any worldwide discussion right now the closest you get is Europe but that's only ex ante impact assessments, and nothing exposed. To what Tom and be said is very much be you use the word to promote. And I really think we should promote rights. Right now the rhetoric is around risks, what are the risks of these systems. How can we promote our fundamental rights are human rights but also of course labor rights. How can we make that a goal of these technologies more than anything else. Yeah, I just couldn't help but pitch in on those things. Thank you. Absolutely be Tom would you like to respond. Yeah Tom please. Well let me just echo what Christina said about rights in the United States we have a particular problem that workers don't have the right to have a voice on the decision about what kind of technologies will affect their jobs. Even whether technology investments will be made or not. And that's where the key starting points come from these algorithms are designed by people, they are not some law of physics or mathematics. They're chosen to optimize certain outcomes. That's where we've got to have workers have a right to participate in those issues that's a change in our national labor law. And changing labor law in the United States is very, very difficult. I've been involved in that for many years and it's very frustrating, but I think we've got this as an opening. This is an area where I think we could create opportunities for experimentation with worker voice and we would, we would see that when you do that, you get better results. And to win win of this discussion is all about. So I think we've got to bring some new legislation and some new opportunities in the United States the Biden administration is trying to do this with some of its government investments and encouraging employers to create high quality jobs and to be engaged with their workforce and with unions on these issues. We've got to promote those initiatives and we got to experiment with them and show that they, they pay off. And just on the job quality, I'll just make up another pitch. A number of us are working with various foundations right now to try to create a national job quality longitudinal survey, so that not only do we track the unemployment rate, but we track the quality of jobs over time. And that we get enough data about who is whose jobs are are getting better and who's are not, and where does technology fit into that so we need we need to get started with that process and build the right kind of indicators into our dialogue and national policy Absolutely. I think those are really great comments Tom and I want to double click on a point that be brought up in that there is a way to have conversations with workers when developing technologies, and I'd like to ask the panel. What are those ways that we can incentivize through policy reform. How can we incentivize technologists and technology vendors to listen to the needs of their end users when developing their technologies and something that may happen with some high road high road technologists but more in large, by and large, there's really not an incentive structure for that to happen. The tech vendors will respond to the needs of their clients who oftentimes are not the workers. In case, most of the kind, they're not workers so would love to just see be if you have any thoughts or Christine or Tom on how can we be thinking about an incentive structure for incorporating worker voice when developing these technologies in private sector in particular. Any thoughts. Yeah, maybe I can start out and I know that my colleagues here have have some deep expertise in this area but I think that, you know, there are a couple of layers to this so you asked about public policy and certainly. I think that there are mechanisms Christina mentioned kind of the challenge of relying only on ex anti impact analysis or consultation so I think that one thing that we could look at from a public policy perspective is kind of ongoing monitoring ongoing conversation or impact assessment as it relates to these tools being deployed in workplaces. I think it's also the case that, you know, from a policy perspective. There's still a lot of work and research needed, I think that in many degrees, or many contexts there's this frame even you said it in the frame this question that assumption that not talking with workers somehow benefits the employer but I don't know that that's actually true right like workers are deep experts in the job that they are doing and it is frequently the case that they bring a lot of expertise to how technology could be developed better that could enrich both their work experience as well as, you know, increase the capacity, you know whether it is for productivity sake as Christina alluded to, or otherwise of their organization and so I think that we should challenge the notion that those things are at odds. I think that there is a non public policy side to this right there are corporate policies that are also really powerful and one of the things that we're working actually a spend digital on in our frontline AI work is really trying to understand how managers you know if you're a if you're a plant manager working in a manufacturing context or whatever the case may be. Frankly, there are a lot of suggestions to consult with workers or, you know, to do this work but frequently translating that to the specific context of the individual firm or of the individual team or plant can still take some effort and so I think that this work potentially not even in the public policy context but maybe more in the private policy space of better defining what those steps are creating greater resources Christina has been leading the way in so many ways for workers to actually use technology to voice their own goals and their own desires for the development of these tools so I think that there's also a lot of exciting work to be done in actually leveraging technology to support workers in expressing what those things are so that we're not just relying on regulations to prohibit things but actually actively saying what are the goals that we're building toward here what is it that we want to accomplish. Let me build on that a little bit. First of all, there's a great phrase that I learned from Japanese auto manufacturers, many years ago, and they say it's workers who give wisdom to these machines. And so Toyota, in its wisdom, listen to workers and to industrial engineers together to understand what parts of work can we make safer, less ergonomically dangerous, and more productive if we listen to the workers who have the most ideas about how to improve the operations and to which they do their work. And that has demonstrated to be a very highly productive process. Again, by designing the technology, at the same time we design the work process, we then can change both of those to augment what workers' knowledge and skills can bring to the table. And so we ought to have policies, either corporate policies that bring workers into those decisions. Every company in the country or in the world for that matter should have a technology advisory committee that brings a worker voice along with managers and engineers into those early stage conversations so they can invest wisely and make best use of their dollars. But let's push it back then to two other areas where government could make a difference. I already mentioned that in the US we've got all this investment in infrastructure and chips and the new electronics and ways of improving our climate. Those criteria for funding those projects ought to include criteria that say, are you bringing workers into this process? And if so, how are you doing it? And you're going to be held accountable for doing that as getting, for getting these funds. So that kind of thing should go to the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health. All of our big funding agencies, when they give grants to universities and other industry groups, then they should also say, how are you going to use this technology? How are you going to be designed? Are you going to, who is going to be consulted in the design? Build that into our funding at the earliest stages, not to slow down, not to deny that technology can be helpful, but to insist that the right voices are brought into that process. I really appreciated those comments, Tom. Christina would love for you to weigh in. I'd be remiss if I didn't flag New American Fact last fall partnered with the Department of Transportation and Department of Labor for a conversation on making the most of the infrastructure investments and translating them into good jobs. And I should say that we're actually embarking on a similar conversation with our colleagues at NSF and thinking of how we bring the job quality dialogue upstream to the point of R&D investments. The science policy specialist in me resonated soundly with that comment. Christina, turning to you. Thank you. Now, several things. So as a non-American on this panel, I'm going to be very brutally honest, and I think Bea said this right in the beginning. The coupling of your healthcare system to employment is one of the trigger points or entry points for the exploitation of labor. The disrespect of labor in your country for many, many workers is for an outsider like me, astonishing. So what Tom and what Bea were alluding to, well, come to Europe, come to where the labor unions are very strong, have good relationships with the employees where dialogue is a we thing. We enter into dialogue. It's not a boxing match. If you win, I lose. It is, especially in certain countries, this aim to win-win, you know, we might agree to disagree now and again, but it's more of a win-win situation. So Tom's comment from Japan, I love that. And it is, and my doctorate was all about the role of social capital, i.e. trust, a common language, dialogue, what role that has in innovation. And I was in very high trust countries like Denmark, and then I was in lesser trust countries back then Poland, and then least less trust countries, Russia. And how do you get workers in those contexts to feel comfortable about speaking up? But as they did, gradually, in these, and it was in factories, innovation just exploded through the roof. So it goes to show as my, you know, the panelists have said that the moment you do engage, you take the time to learn from those who are experts at their work is also the time you become more adaptable, more flexible, more innovative. So I have to say, from an outsider, I could be horribly wrong. But one of the key things in the United States that you need to change is this antagonism between management and labor. You're in this together. And the moment you can start saying we, about each other, I think a lot of things will change. Absolutely. So, now I wanted to span out a little bit and think about a additional stakeholder and all of this, the media. Something that's been especially top of mind for us at New American World Economic Forum is the storytelling element in this and the media has contributed to shaping the views and attitudes and understanding of automation certainly and the impact of tech at work. Policymakers and business leaders, activists, think tankers. We all respond in parts what we read and the narratives that are developed in the media. We've covered a number of very concrete ideas, issues, pinch points, opportunities. But I'd love to go around the panel and ask, what do you believe are key stories that need to be covered right now by journalists and reporters, what's missing, what needs more attention. We've covered a lot of topics. What are some key highlights if you would flag up for media in particular and maybe we'll start in the order you all appear on my screen, which is B. I'm going to be jumping in first again. Well, thank you so much. Yeah, I think that what Christina just said actually is absolutely essential to telling this story. And there is a notion that that workers and employers are are inevitably, you know, at odds with one another and I think that finding examples and telling stories of showcasing where that is not the case showcasing where as Christina alluded to innovation is where problems are solved and new opportunities are uncovered is a key storytelling element for journalists. I also want to reaffirm something that Tom said earlier which is to make sure that we don't afford too much agency to the technology when it is actually just a tool being used by people. My colleagues and I at husband digital have put together a bunch of resources for journalists, learning about AI generative AI, where to find experts in AI and one of the sections that we found really useful for folks is literally how to talk about AI and one of the things that we recommend is make sure that you center the humans in the process right like these it isn't automation eliminating jobs it is employers using automation to eliminate jobs it is not the technology doing the thing on its own, but it is people choosing to use a tool for for all kinds of positive and negative consequences so I think another really important story that journalists can tell is to kind of peek behind the curtain right like we're not. This is the Wizard of Oz holds a lot of power but in fact, there are people behind the scenes making these decisions and to shine light on the people, and maybe even some of the systemic pressures as I alluded to with kind of the, the relative tax on capital and labor, those things can actually help to maybe remove some of that feeling of powerlessness and techno determinism, and instead center this on a conversation of human beings and then you know returning to Christina's point. When we're talking about human beings, we can have a conversation about what are the things that we mutually want to achieve what can we do when we work together. Christina. Yeah, I'm finding that question really difficult because at the moment, you know, good stories don't sell like you know fair trade coffee if goodness sold fair trade coffee would be much more bought than it is. We need the drama and I think that that's one of the big things around the media I wish so let me be a little bit utopic here. I wish the media would go out there and do exactly what we said find the anecdotal stories, start asking what could this be generalizable in any way all dialogue is actually good, or you know co creating participatory action and all thinking maybe that should come back in. That's one thing but the second thing I have a big wish and I'm so thankful for be in the Aspen Institute for actually having done that work for journalists is see through the narratives. You know, okay, narrative number one regulations stifles innovation. I don't know how many times I have to read that in newspapers across the world every day, but it is simply not proven in reality. Break the narrative stop repeating the narratives be more diverse in who you speak to to understand this technology at the moment is the white man who's interviewed all the time is their narrative. So, so I think in that way a little bit more critical journalism which we all should pay whatever we can pay to make sure we still have and anecdotal stories also have a good nature. That would be my two wishes. I also see a call to action for think tankers and contributing to the storytelling as the Tom on to you. Well, I think the answer I would give is go out and talk to workers about it, and get their stories, their stories are positive stories, as my colleagues have alluded to. When you give workers an opportunity to say how can I make my job better and how could technology help me, you will get all kinds of ideas, because workers in my experience love to talk about their jobs. And if someone asks them, they are even more excited about it because then they feel respected. The best assignments that we've ever done at MIT. Well, at least that I've ever done I shouldn't say for anyone else is in our class we we ask our MBAs we require MBAs to go out and talk to real workers not to their cousins or brother in law or sister in law, or other students but people on the front line, ask them about their work. Ask them what what makes them most satisfied. What is their hope and aspiration for the future. How could they make it better. And what are their biggest frustrations. These MBAs come back and say it's the best assignment I've ever taken on, because they tell me some things I don't hear from anywhere else. There's a lot of people out there talking about getting workers to tell their stories. We would open up, as Christina said, this whole set of issues to innovations that we haven't even dreamed of. And it would make our economy better our society better, and it would show that we respect worker voice, rather than are afraid of it. Can I can I'm sorry I Christina comment about the realities of the harsh realities of our journalism ecosystem really resonated with me. And I love, like calling out like drama cells. I wonder related to you know I'm just footballing here but related to this conversation around metrics and what are we shooting for you know what are we measuring. I wonder if they're like, there is drama in the fact that some companies are doing this well while other companies are saying it's impossible it can never be done. They're doing this well while others are saying that will destroy our economy. So I think that there is drama there there is drama in, maybe calling to calling that juxtaposition out and say like wait a minute you said that this can possibly be done and yet here are 10 other examples of it happening. Of course we need those examples to exist we need people to as Tom said, go to the front lines and actually capture and and amplify those stories but like, but what's up with that right. I think that that could be a spicy take for some journalists out there so I think that when we we don't have they don't have to be feel good stories, they can be stories that have some feel good elements but can also call the call to light. This like hypocrisy and juxtaposition that we see playing out in the world so let's not, let's not give up on the drama yet. Good piece of advice be and it's actually a great segue now, moving on to our audience Q&A segment. Our first question actually gets at this competitive element among our capitalist ecosystem members which is that there's one group we haven't gone over yet in the discussion, which is shareholders. What can we do to elevate this discussion to the level of shareholders in the US. How do we influence them to support this goal of elevating worker voice when considering technologies would love to see if our panelists have any thoughts feel free to jump in. So this goes back to something I've been working on for years and years and years and that's the logic of the market who determines whether the market, and I hate, you know, personalizing the market as such but you know, rewards are not behavior. So I think we need to make sure that the rating agencies and others on board that anti worker behavior, union busting and the like, or not willingness to engage in conversation with the workers should be penalized this should be you know, unfortunately, companies do what the market rewards them to do. So we need to change the criteria of the market. And I think this this is going to be key nobody says the way it is now is the only way capitalism can be we can look at the sort of more stakeholder capitalism forms in other places of the world. So here again, move away from productivity start prioritizing other things and then trust me the you will become we and I think we will have far more dialogue. And it also is important for investment firms and Wall Street to understand what we're talking about here today and what we're saying that they're throwing money away when they invest in technology without engaging the workforce and designing ways that will actually drive innovation rather than get it resisted, or that they'll waste money on trying to reduce labor costs because they, these vendors are claiming they will reduce headcount and and replace workers and the reality is it doesn't work that way. And you get low returns on investment with that approach. So we've got to invest, we've got to educate the investors as well and I agree with Christina to change the, the, the metrics that we use and we should hold firms accountable for a broader set of outcomes but we also need to educate these, these investors who don't have a clue as to how much money is being wasted in the way in which technology is being introduced today. I actually kind of challenged the notion that investors are not bored with this like ESG investment has been booming. And, and that indicates an overall kind of cultural shift toward a recognition that, hey maybe we do need to consider, you know, more than just the short term revenue growth of an organization. That's what I said and actually this is something I left out in the policy overview is that what gets classified as ESG is very wiggly wiggly. But right now there are many efforts around the world to begin to create some more strict guidelines about how that's interpreted. And I think, you know, to the points that my colleagues have made here, there is a fantastic opportunity like Tom said in kind of like in the procurement space or in the in the research space, kind of saying, I want to qualify for ESG. Here are the things related to job quality and related to worker voice that need to be represented. So I think that actually investors could be pushing us in a positive direction here. But right now, you know, as as much money as going around as there is, I think that there's still a lot of obfuscation and confusion over what, what responsible investing actually looks like and if we can have some more structure and some works to give people clarity so that they know that those investment dollars are going to the places where they're actually going to be well spent. I think that the, you know, the investment will follow. But, you know, there's this kind of larger ecosystem question that has to be shaped up around, how do we qualify for ESG categorization because many people want to invest in that space. But right now, it's a little bit the Wild West in terms of what counts and what doesn't. I mean, I picked up on a number of other breadcrumbs for journalists who might be in the audience today from those comments. So thank you all. Our next question is for you, Tom, and it goes back to one of the comments you made on a new index to measure job quality and one of our audience members is wondering if you could expand on the current way we evaluate job quality in this country and where you see opportunities for improving that with the metric development you referenced. Sure. Thank you for that question. That's a really important one. Well, let's start with the, the Aspen Institute has done a good job of bringing a bunch of academics, industry leaders, labor leaders together to say, well, what does what does job quality really mean. And I think they have a very inclusive definition, certainly with wages and job security and promotion opportunities are things that we always think of are critical elements. But then there's two other things that two other dimensions that they've introduced and that is inclusion and diversity and equity. As one set of making sure that everyone in organizations is included in our indices in measuring of job quality and then the third one, the one that that I've been focused on most directly with the Families and Workers Institute is basically how do you is bringing worker voice into this concept of job quality. And how do we measure worker voice how do we make sure that it's part of a comprehensive measure of job quality. So, yes, the objective and traditional wages job security promotion security and safety is is important equity and inclusion is important and worker voice you bring those three dimensions together. And then you have a much more holistic concept of job quality. We've got to develop good measures of all of those and then we've got to get the resources to go out and collect the data that's necessary to see how we're doing. And actually, can I add to that because I just find that that's a wonderful project but can I also add something. We use very horrible terms about certain workers, it's unskilled labor, for example, or, you know, low paid or whatever it may be, and I think we should challenge ourselves in this job quality discussion to also say how can we start rewarding work of all kinds, not necessarily financially only, but also ethically, socially, that people feel rewarded for what they do, somebody might want to be a janitor because that's what they like doing. Yet we call that person a derogative word as unskilled labor, right. I really think you know the job quality is an individual is emotional is a subjective thing it can be measured with via fixed criteria but we should also lift it to a systemic level. How are we holding certain jobs in low quality, because of the way we name them. That's a really great additional point Christina, and I think tracks with public opinion data we've seen on what people value in their work. So, our next question really gets that, you know, I think a comment that that all of you have touched on earlier about this discussion, which, well, we, I think we've, we've, we've maybe circled it but we haven't quite addressed it so we've been discussing quite a bit about how technology changes work and how workers can influence the technology deployment process. Next question that we've received is around how workers can be trained or educated in school and in college or other career and technical training programs to thrive in a work environment that is going to be more dynamic and work work and would love for our panelists to weigh in on that question. Any takers. Yeah, I'm like that's for you, Shaylin. I'm not on the panel. Christina why don't you go ahead and then I'll. Yeah, yeah, I mean, Shaylin, actually, we're going to put you on the panel. What do you think. Well, I think this is I'm really glad this question came up because I actually think it's one that is at the heart of a lot of work we've been doing at the Center of Education and Labor, which is really trying to think about the workforce implications of the future of how we sort of operationalize this. And I think there's sort of two dimensions that come to mind for me. The first is, how do we go at better anticipating the skills that folks will need to thrive in these new jobs that are going to be able to work and right now I think there's there's a couple of ways to approach that one is using real time labor market information you know you evaluate job postings see what employers are saying they need by way of the skills they require. There are limitations what we can learn with that there's limitations to the data that we can really lean on most real time LMI relies on, you know, aggregate collection of job postings data and LinkedIn data to inference skills. We know that when you meet with employers and talk to them about their hiring needs what job descriptions say may not align with what's actually under the hood. That being said, it is I think a relatively robust measure for us to look at and trying to get a sense of the skills folks will need. All those skills are changing over time for certain occupations so I know Department of Labor has had a number of pilots with sort of bringing the data driven piece and anticipating the skills that are emerging from this work. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that we're actually in the midst of doing emerging technology workforce development research with a number of partners with community colleges as a focus in the US what is role of community colleges in aligning technology and talent development. The other dimension and I think Tom you touched on this in the context of R&D funding and the creation of new technologies in the first place is for us to really try to think about workforce development when we're incentivizing the creation of these technologies by way of research by way of development. When I was at the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, we had partnered with the late Emily DeRocco former Assistant Secretary of Labor to think about how we go about road mapping for education and skills alongside the technology and plans at R&D agencies and you know I think from that work we learned that there actually really isn't a sophisticated understanding of how we could do that so it's an area of opportunity to sort of refine that so thank you B for the opportunity to sort of chime in with my own thoughts but would love to see what the panelists say just in reaction to that. Any any perspectives. Really quick point. The best labor market data that I know shows that it's the hybrid skills that are paying off. It's not just the analytical skills and the knowledge of computer technology and so on that's necessary, but it's also the social skills what can you do can you communicate can you lead can you negotiate. Can you manage can you work in teams can can you analyze how things could be improved and communicate that. So let's not forget the importance of those social skills. And we need to build that in with technology, and then I'm going to make a pitch for the most successful forms of training that I think we have ever invented and that's called apprenticeships and pre apprenticeships getting the students in our high schools and as you said, Shayla and our community colleges and technical schools engaged with the employers and with unions early on in shaping on the job and in the classroom combined learning combined with placement of these young people, especially now as we spend so much money now on infrastructure investment. And interestingly, there are community benefit agreements that are negotiated into those which are bringing people of color and people who have been excluded women into these so called trades and into the jobs which will be growing in the future, and they will get state of the art training on technology, and they will get state of the art training on leadership and and teamwork and problem solving. So let's use that concept of an apprenticeship, where we learn in the classroom, we apply it on the job, and there's a link to a real good high quality job when people graduate from those programs. Absolutely Tom Christina be any additional thoughts couldn't agree enough. Do you want to go be and I'll. Okay, no I just going back to what I think I remember the question was is around adaptability really right and if you are scared that you're going to lose your job any given moment if you lose your job you use your health insurance you lose everything. And then your willingness to adapt to change to confront all of this is of course much less than for example in a country like Denmark where we have a very strong safety net. So it's not just the workers who are backwards thinking against change and all of these things it's also a systemic issue. And scale right so make it safer I mean the flexible Danish labor market is a great example of you can get fired tomorrow but there will always be a safety net holding you until you find another job. So lots of things and of course training I love that Tom said apprenticeships because yes I think academics should have included in their education as well apprenticeships. And of course that we make it incentivize our companies to open up for those apprenticeships on good conditions. So totally agree. Thanks. Add on to that as well just like employers, you know I love that you're tracking all of this job rec, you know job listing data to see what employers are asking for. But like, sometimes employers need to train people. Right, like, like, it's, it's great to look for people who already have all the skills that you want. But I think that like related to apprenticeships recognizing that employers, you know, if employers want the workforce of tomorrow, they may have to invest in in training up the workforce of tomorrow and, and people have a great deal of positive communication with employers who help them to do that right turn over the cost of turn and, and especially in some of these frontline roles is incredibly expensive recruiting people and retraining people is like incredibly expensive to companies. If you can keep people around by retraining them or giving them access to opportunities like not only are you saving your business money but you're also creating cultivating a company culture of goodwill, which I think is is something that is a win win for everyone. I couldn't think of a better capstone because for out of time unfortunately. I'd like to just take a moment to thank all of you are distinguished panel and and re and K and all of you in the audience today for joining us for this discussion. I, I couldn't think of a better way to really kick off the first public dialogue around this new America, World Economic Forum partnership and I'm really excited to carry on the discussions with each of you. Christina Tom be and our audience members and our broader partner network so thank you again very much for joining us today. Thank you everyone.