AI adoption itself off the table for mandatory bargaining — but job changes are not

The government has excluded demands opposing the introduction of AI and automated equipment from mandatory collective bargaining. However, if changes to job duties or work arrangements are objectively expected as a result of such adoption, those matters must be negotiated.

The intent is that even without layoffs, labor and management must discuss any changes to shift schedules or work methods. The guidelines draw a distinction between a company's choice of technology and how that technology reshapes workers' jobs.

The Ministry of Employment and Labor's "Implementation Guidelines on Labor Dispute Subjects Including Performance Bonuses," announced Thursday, explicitly states that the decision to introduce new technologies such as AI and automated equipment is not itself a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Merely announcing a robot deployment or smart factory construction does not trigger a bargaining obligation on the grounds that jobs could change or headcount could fall.

However, if a specific workforce management plan — covering job or work-arrangement changes, or layoffs resulting from new technology — is confirmed to be under development or already decided, the related working conditions may become subject to bargaining. The guidelines identify reassignments following restructuring, employment stability measures, working-hour adjustments, and health and safety measures arising from changes in work methods as bargainable subjects.

A notable aspect is that the threshold for bargaining is not limited to workforce reductions. The guidelines cite as a specific example the deployment of physical robots on a production line accompanied by changes to shift arrangements. Bargaining is possible whenever a confirmed plan would alter the tasks workers perform or the hours they work, even if overall employment is maintained.

For instance, if a company has a concrete plan to reassign existing workers to different processes or restructure shift rotations following a robot deployment, the criteria and procedures for reassignment and working hours may be discussed. When work methods change so that people work alongside robots, health and safety measures become a bargaining agenda item as well. None of this can be excluded from bargaining simply by labeling it a managerial decision on technology adoption.

Deputy Minister of Employment and Labor Kwon Chang-jun said that if AI adoption eliminates jobs or leads to workforce adjustments, bargaining is required. On reassignments, he said the question is "not whether they happen, but discussing the criteria and procedures."

The scope is not limited to production workers. The ministry said AI is also used to reduce repetitive tasks or improve efficiency for office workers, and that AI adoption should not be automatically equated with job cuts. The same standard applies to office workers: if specific changes to job duties or work arrangements are expected, the related working conditions must be examined.

In the automotive industry, the relationship between robot deployment and employment has already emerged as a labor-management issue. Hyundai Motor Group announced earlier this year that it would deploy humanoid robots called Atlas at Hyundai Motor Group Metaplant America, its factory in the state of Georgia, starting in 2028, beginning with tasks such as parts sorting and expanding to additional processes over time.

In recent wage negotiations, Hyundai Motor's labor and management agreed on the need to introduce future technologies including physical AI and robotics, and committed to sharing updates on new businesses and new technology and responding jointly to the industrial transition. The agreement formally incorporated information sharing on technology adoption. A tentative agreement reached Aug. 25 passed a union membership vote on Monday.

The new guidelines do not prevent such voluntary discussions. The ministry's position is that even matters not subject to mandatory bargaining may be negotiated and agreed upon voluntarily by labor and management. If existing agreements already include consultation procedures related to new technology adoption, the publication of these guidelines alone does not invalidate those agreements. The legally mandated scope of bargaining and the procedures established by mutual agreement must be treated as separate matters.

The remaining question is when bargaining can begin. The guidelines do not require that a workforce management plan be finalized before bargaining can start. If the existence of a concrete plan under development is revealed through internal company notices, labor-management council materials, or employer confirmation during negotiations, and if changes to working conditions are objectively expected, bargaining on those matters is possible.

Kwon said bargaining is triggered "not when a plan is finalized and announced, but when it is objectively confirmed." He added that labor and management can verify whether AI adoption will lead to workforce changes, and if no changes are expected, that finding can be incorporated into a collective agreement.

However, given that information on technology and workforce management is concentrated within companies, how early unions can confirm whether plans have become sufficiently concrete remains a challenge. A company may argue that it is still verifying the effects of AI adoption and that workforce assignments have not been determined, while a union may contend that once the scope of automation for a given process or task is set, changes to job duties are reasonably foreseeable.

If information sharing is delayed, the broad outlines of equipment and work systems may already be fixed by the time bargaining begins. Conversely, merely exploring a technology does not make it easy to conclude that layoffs or deteriorating working conditions will follow. This is why the practical question of how to distinguish between what the government calls a "vague possibility" and an "objectively foreseeable change" will be critical at actual workplaces.

Ultimately, what is at stake in labor-management negotiations over AI is not just the number of jobs. It also includes who does what work, for how long, and how safety is ensured in a changed work environment. For the distinction between the decision to adopt new technology and changes to working conditions to function in practice, companies and workers must also settle when adoption plans and information about changes to job duties are shared — and when bargaining begins.