AT A GLANCE | Artificial intelligence is already transforming our workplaces, raising important questions about jobs, surveillance and working conditions. How can we ensure these changes benefit workers too? A look back at the key issues discussed during two days of discussions organized by the QFL.
Artificial intelligence is already transforming our workplaces. It promises to simplify certain tasks, boost productivity and make our daily work easier. But behind these promises lie some fundamental questions: How will AI affect our jobs, working conditions and rights? And above all, will we have a say?
On October 27 and 28, the Quebec Federation of Labour (QFL) brought together union representatives and experts for two days of discussions on artificial intelligence and technological change in the workplace.
The goal was to better understand the changes underway, their impact on workers and the tools unions have to shape how these technologies are introduced and used.
One clear message emerged from the discussions: artificial intelligence is not an inevitable force that we simply have to adapt to. How it is introduced and used comes down to decisions, and the people who will live with the consequences must have a say in those decisions.
Some jobs are disappearing, while others are changing
When we talk about artificial intelligence, the fear of losing our jobs often comes to mind. And that concern is legitimate.
Some occupations are already being affected by automation. In the media industry, for example, technology can now perform live captioning tasks that were previously carried out by employees.
But the impact of AI goes far beyond job losses.
An employer might decide not to replace retiring employees, reduce hiring or assign additional responsibilities to an existing team. Some positions could also become harder to access for people just starting their careers if the tasks that traditionally helped them gain experience are now automated.
And for those who keep their jobs, the nature of their work could change significantly.
The real question, then, is not just how many jobs will disappear, but also what working conditions will look like for those that remain.
Working faster shouldn't mean working more
Artificial intelligence can bring meaningful improvements when it reduces repetitive, demanding or low-value tasks.
But imagine a new tool that allows an employee to process files twice as quickly. Their employer could choose to give them more time to handle complex situations, improve the quality of their work or simply reduce their workload.
Or the employer could decide to double their productivity targets.
In both cases, the technology is the same. What changes are the management decisions.
This was one of the major issues raised during the two days of discussions: productivity gains do not automatically lead to better working conditions.
On the contrary, AI could increase pressure on teams, accelerate the pace of work, reduce professional autonomy and contribute to mental overload.
Technological progress should not be an excuse to constantly demand more from workers. It should also help them work better.
When technology becomes a surveillance tool
Artificial intelligence isn't just used to perform tasks. It can also be used to measure, compare and monitor employees' work.
Software already exists that can collect data on employees' movements, communications, productivity and behaviour.
This information can then be used to evaluate their performance, sometimes without taking the realities of their work into account.
Consider two colleagues performing similar duties. One handles straightforward files, while the other deals with much more complex situations. A system that compares only how quickly they complete their work could wrongly conclude that the first employee is more productive.
This approach to performance evaluation raises serious concerns about fairness, privacy and psychological well-being.
A 2025 arbitration ruling involving Coach Canada reinforced the principle that even when an employer has a legitimate safety objective, certain forms of technological surveillance may be disproportionate.
Just because technology makes it possible to monitor workers doesn't mean that such surveillance is necessary, justified or acceptable.
Training: A responsibility that cannot rest solely on workers
Technological change also risks widening inequalities among employees.
Those who are already comfortable using digital tools may find it easier to take on new responsibilities or access opportunities for advancement. Others could find themselves at a disadvantage simply because they haven't had the same opportunities to learn.
Yet learning to use new technology takes time, resources and support.
When an employer decides to introduce a new tool, they must also consider the needs of the people who will be expected to use it.
For the labour movement, training must therefore become a central part of discussions about artificial intelligence. It should not be treated as yet another individual responsibility, but as an essential condition for a fair transition.
And when jobs are at risk, action must be taken early enough to explore opportunities for retraining and reassignment, rather than waiting until job cuts are announced.
Who gets to decide the future of our work?
This may be the most important question raised during the two days of discussions.
Today, decisions to introduce new technologies are still largely made by employers, with little meaningful involvement from the people who will use them every day.
Yet who understands the realities of a workplace better than the people who work there? Union members know which tasks are difficult, which constraints must be respected and which problems new tools could genuinely help solve.
Their experience should help shape decisions from the outset, not simply be called upon once changes have already been made.
This involvement is especially important because Quebec's legal framework does not establish a general obligation for employers to consult unions before every technological change.
Collective bargaining therefore becomes an essential tool for securing commitments on transparency, consultation, job protection, training and the use of personal data.
Collective agreements will also need to reflect a new reality: technology can evolve considerably after it has been introduced. Software initially designed to make work easier could, following an update, become a tool for monitoring employees or evaluating their performance.
Worker protections must be able to evolve alongside these technologies.
Progress must also benefit the people doing the work
Artificial intelligence is neither entirely good nor entirely bad for the world of work. Its impact will depend largely on how it is developed, introduced and regulated.
It can help make certain jobs less demanding, improve services and support workers in carrying out their responsibilities.
But it can also deepen inequalities, undermine job security and give employers greater control over their employees.
For the 800, these changes raise questions that will need to play an increasingly important role in discussions with employers and in upcoming rounds of collective bargaining. Because defending members' rights also means anticipating the changes that could reshape their daily working lives.
We cannot allow decisions about the future of work to be made without the people who make that work possible. Technological progress should be an opportunity to improve working conditions, develop skills and share productivity gains more fairly.
The issue, then, is not about choosing between artificial intelligence and workers. It's about making sure artificial intelligence works for workers, not the other way around.