Workforce Automation Impact

US Job Openings Jump to Nearly Two-Year High as Hiring Slows The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that job openings increased to 7.618 million in April, well above expectations for 6.860 million and up from 6.887 million in March. At the same time, hires fell to 5.116 million from 5.535 million, while quits declined to 2.977 million from 3.160 million. Layoffs and discharges edged lower to 1.692 million. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, better known as JOLTS, is one of the Federal Reserve's preferred measures of labor demand. Job openings measure positions employers are actively trying to fill, while hires measure jobs actually being filled and quits are often viewed as a measure of worker confidence. At first glance, today's report looks exceptionally strong and will likely be interpreted as a positive surprise for the labor market. Job openings surged by more than 700,000 in a single month and came in far above economist expectations. Not surprisingly, economists will likely spend the coming days debating exactly what to make of such a large increase, particularly given the outsized contribution from Professional and Business Services. Whether that reflects a genuine acceleration in labor demand, seasonal effects, timing issues, or something that is revised later remains to be seen. But the broader report tells a more nuanced story than the headline alone. Hiring declined. Quits declined. Workers became slightly less likely to voluntarily leave their jobs. In other words, employers are reporting more open positions, but workers are not behaving as though opportunities have suddenly become easier to find. That disconnect matters because many Americans are still experiencing a labor market that feels far more challenging than the aggregate statistics suggest. Workers in healthcare, skilled trades, and many service industries may continue to see plentiful opportunities. Workers in many white-collar professions often describe a very different reality where job searches take longer, competition is more intense, and open positions attract hundreds of applicants. Both experiences can be true at the same time. This helps explain why labor market sentiment and labor market data have often appeared disconnected over the past year. A labor market can remain healthy overall while still feeling difficult for specific groups of workers. Consumers do not make spending decisions based solely on unemployment rates. They make decisions based on how secure they feel in their jobs and how confident they are that they could find another one if necessary. A labor market where employers are posting jobs but workers remain hesitant to leave their current positions can still produce a cautious consumer, even when the headline data appears strong. At Havas Edge, we closely monitor labor market data because shifts in employment confidence often influence consumer behavior long before they appear in broader economic indicators.

Three major developments in the last week should have every HR leader, employer, and AI vendor paying attention: 1. The AI Civil Rights Act was reintroduced in the US Congress Led by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Yvette D. Clarke, this legislation places hard guardrails around AI and algorithmic systems used in decisions related to hiring, housing, healthcare and beyond. It demands transparency, bias testing, and accountability. Think of it as GDPR for bias, but with broader implications across HR, tech, and operations. “We will not allow AI to stand for Accelerating Injustice.” – Senator Ed Markey for U.S. Senate 2. California’s new workplace AI discrimination laws are now in effect. The new rule governing companies' use of automated decision-making technology will likely create a situation where companies are liable for hiring practices if a system violates anti-discrimination laws. As other U.S. states also implement laws and regulations containing similar ADMT protections, companies deploying the technology will need to be proactive in their record keeping and vetting of third-parties while auditing their own tools to understand how the software functions. It’s no longer enough to trust your tools and vendors, you must prove they’re fair. 3. Insurers are backing away from covering AI risks AIG, Great American, and WR Berkley are asking regulators to exclude AI-related liabilities from their policies. Why? Because the risks (from chatbots hallucinating to algorithmic bias in hiring) are seen as “too opaque, too unpredictable.” When insurers are pulling cover, it’s a warning sign: you own the risk. 👁 What this means for HR and recruitment business leaders: We’ve officially entered the age of AI Accountability. That means: ✅ You need visibility into how your AI systems work, especially if they’re used for hiring, performance management, or workforce planning. ✅ You must audit your HR tech stack (yes, that includes Workday, ATS platforms, and even AI resume screeners). ✅ You need to document fairness, not just assume it. ✅ You must rethink your contracts with AI vendors. If the tech goes wrong, insurers may not have your back. 🛡 If you haven’t already, it’s time to start building your AI Governance Playbook. 📌 Audit all AI tools in use 📌 Build an internal AI ethics committee 📌 Ensure legal, DEI and HR alignment on tool deployment 📌 Partner only with vendors offering bias mitigation, auditability, and indemnification

While I’m seeing more commentary about nascent improvement in return to office and office leasing, a reversion to “normal” is still a long way off. Unfortunately, changes in the way we work are, at least significantly, structural in nature – meaning much of the shift to remote and hybrid work that was accelerated by COVID is probably here to stay. But a lower long-run average level of office space usage per worker is not the only demand headwind ailing office. There is also the issue of anemic job growth in many office-using sectors. Year-over-year as of November 2024, employment in the finance & insurance and management of companies sectors grew by just 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively. Employment declined in the information (-0.4%) and administrative & support services (-1.0%) sectors, during the same period. This weak hiring trend began in 2023. Growth has been better in the professional, scientific & technical services sector over the past year, but even this sector has seen limited growth over the past six months. So, the big question is whether weaker office-using job growth is a symptom of a tight labor market and cyclical headwinds related to the higher interest rate environment or whether there is something more structural going on here as well. Are technology-driven productivity gains beginning to materially impact headcount? and if so, is slower job growth set to linger? or will more productive and profitable companies lead to an acceleration in hiring over the medium- to long-term? The answers to these questions, and resultant investment outcomes for office property owners, are likely to vary greatly by market, location, and asset quality.

Australia now has an Office of AI, providing an initial direction on how our country will handle the challenges to come. But we still do not have a clear plan for the people whose jobs will be changed by it. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today announced a new national AI framework, including: - A new Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, meaning the office is about oversight and policy, not r&d - National standards for the development and use of AI, meaning the government wants legislation around this - Stronger protections for Australian creative work and intellectual property, meaning our scientists, brands, and artists may be the first in the world to gain the protections they all crave - Greater scrutiny of the energy and water demands created by AI data centers - A stronger focus on consumer safety, national security, and misinformation - Recognition that AI will significantly affect jobs and the workforce These are important steps. But as a career coach, my focus is on the workforce perspective, and there's much still missing: - Corporate leaders need to know what responsible AI adoption looks like inside an organization. - Workers need to know how they will be protected, consulted and supported as their roles change. - And Australia needs more than a general commitment to skills and innovation. We need clarity on several questions: - What responsibilities will employers have when AI changes, reduces, or removes roles? - Will organizations be required to consult employees before introducing AI into significant workplace decisions? - What protections will apply when AI is used in recruitment, performance management, promotion, surveillance, or redundancy decisions? - Who will fund the retraining of experienced workers whose expertise remains valuable, but whose roles are being redesigned? - How will small and mid-sized organizations access the same workforce-transition support available to large employers? - What will Australia do to prevent the benefits of AI from being concentrated among a small number of companies, executives, and highly specialized workers? - How will we measure whether AI is improving productivity, job quality and organizational performance, rather than simply reducing headcount? - What support will be available to managers who are expected to lead AI-related change without the skills, governance or resources to do it well? The future of work will not be secured by technology policy alone. It will require workforce policy, leadership capability, employee consultation, career transition support, and serious investment in adult learning. The government has begun defining the rules for AI. The next task is to explain how Australia will help its people and organizations adapt to them. That is the part corporate leaders and the workforce still need to see. #LinkedInNewsAustralia Jon Whittle Catherine Lopes (PhD GAICD) Dr. Marianne Roux Misa Han Catherine Ball

🚀 𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐈: 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐔𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓🚀 AI is already reshaping our lives. One of the most profound transformations is happening in the workplace. AI is changing how we do our jobs—and soon, it will change which jobs exist at all. Some roles will disappear, while new ones emerge. Naturally, unions are concerned—not just about job losses, but about mental health, workplace safety, and the risks of unregulated AI adoption. They have been vocal in demanding that workers be at the centre of AI adoption decisions. We are at a crossroads: how do we balance AI-driven productivity gains with the impact on workers? 📢 The House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training has released a report on the digital transformation of workplaces, examining the rapid rise of automated decision-making and machine learning in employment. 107 pages of insights, challenges, and, crucially, 21 recommendations. There's a lot in there, but some key details include: 📌 Regulating AI in employment – The report recommends that AI used in employment decisions (such as hiring and termination) be classified as high-risk, ensuring stronger oversight and safeguards against unfair or biased outcomes. 📌 Strengthening worker privacy protections – It's clear the current privacy laws fail to protect workers’ privacy. At the same time, the Fair Work Act does not contain dedicated privacy protections. The report recommends: 🔹 Banning high-risk uses of workers data, such as providing it to AI developers. 🔹 Prohibiting the sale to third parties of workers’ personal data. 🔹 Requiring transparency in workplace surveillance and data use. 🔹 Empowering the Fair Work Commission to handle privacy-related complaints. 📌 Ensuring worker consultation on AI adoption – Employers should be obligated to consult workers throughout AI adoption, ensuring that new technologies are implemented fairly and do not unfairly disadvantage employees. 📌 Mandating independent AI audits – Government audits of AI are recommended to monitor bias, fairness, and compliance, ensuring AI decisions meet ethical and legal standards. The industrial relations fire has long been burning between unions, employees, and employers—and AI is accelerant. We must strike the balance between AI adoption and worker protections. The employee records exemption leaves many workers without real privacy protections. If AI is to be used fairly in workplaces, reforms here will be just as important as AI-specific regulation. It's inevitable that many workers will be impacted by the AI revolution, but get policies right—and Australia wins. Support AI-driven innovation while ensuring retraining, transparency, and fairness. Get it wrong—and we risk exacerbating job insecurity, discrimination, and workplace inequality - we all lose. #AI #FutureOfWork #Privacy #CyberSecurity #ArtificialIntelligence #EmploymentLaw #DigitalTransformation #AIRegulation

Where Are America’s Jobs Really Growing in 2025? We often focus on the biggest markets. But growth tells a different story. According to data from Arizona State University (based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures), California (18.2M jobs) and Texas (14.5M jobs) remain the nation’s largest labor markets. Florida and New York each exceed 10M jobs as well. Yet the fastest job growth isn’t concentrated only in the largest states. 📈 Top growth rates (2024–2025): ✅Missouri: +1.7% ✅North Carolina: +1.5% ✅South Carolina: +1.3% ✅Utah: +1.2% ✅Minnesota: +1.2% ✅Arkansas: +1.2% Meanwhile, several large coastal markets are flat or slightly negative: ☑️California: 0.0% ☑️Illinois: -0.1% ☑️Washington: -0.4% ☑️Maryland: -0.5% ☑️New Hampshire: -0.8% What This Means for Real Estate As someone deeply focused on location intelligence and market research, I find this shift fascinating. We’re seeing: 🏙️ Scale vs. Momentum The largest employment bases still anchor national demand. But incremental growth is increasingly happening in mid-sized and Sun Belt states. 🚚 Migration + Jobs = Demand Shifts States in the South and Mountain West continue to benefit from domestic migration, housing affordability, and sector growth in healthcare, education, logistics, and tech. 🏢 Emerging Secondary Strength Markets that weren’t always considered “primary” are building durable employment foundations, often quietly. In real estate, job growth is one of the most durable indicators of long-term demand across multifamily, retail, office, and industrial. Absolute size matters. But the direction of movement often matters more. The geography of opportunity is evolving; not dramatically overnight, but steadily. And that steady shift is where long-term patterns form. Source: Arizona State University analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data (Total nonfarm jobs as of Dec 2025). Visual via Visual Capitalist / Voronoi (Dorothy Neufeld & Amy Kuo) #RealEstate #CRE #EconomicDevelopment #JobGrowth #MarketResearch

The UAE job market right now is… interesting. As someone working closely with both clients and candidates, I’m seeing a shift in behaviour on both sides: - Candidates are more cautious than ever Strong candidates are hesitant to move. Stability is winning over salary hikes. - Clients are taking longer to decide More approvals, tighter budgets, and a stronger focus on “the perfect fit” vs “quick hire.” But the biggest shift I’m seeing is this 👇 🔹 Temporary & Contract staffing is gaining serious momentum In times of uncertainty, businesses are becoming more strategic; it's not about whom they hire, but how they hire. Instead of committing to long-term headcount immediately, many companies are: ✔ Opting for project-based or fixed-term hires ✔ Testing roles before making permanent decisions ✔ Managing budgets more efficiently without compromising on talent And honestly, this shift makes sense. For clients, it offers: 👉 Flexibility 👉 Cost control For candidates, it’s opening up: 👉 Faster entry into strong organizations 👉 Exposure to diverse projects 👉 Opportunities that may convert into permanent roles At Nathan & Nathan, this is exactly where we are seeing increased demand. Because Hiring hasn’t slowed down, it has become smarter. Are you seeing a similar shift in your organization? #Trybeforeyouhire #UAEJobs #Recruitment #Staffing #ContractStaffing #TalentAcquisition #UAEHiring #HRTrends #TemporaryStaffing

Planning to replace your workforce with AI? Prepare for court. A recent ruling from the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court makes one point with unusual clarity: automation does not absolve employers of responsibility. It sharpens it. The case itself is deceptively simple. A senior quality assurance supervisor, tasked with aligning user queries to large language models and filtering unsafe outputs, was displaced by the systems he helped refine. The company responded with a familiar sequence: redeployment at a sharply reduced salary, followed by termination when the offer was refused. The legal justification rested on “organizational restructuring” driven by AI adoption. The court rejected the argument. Under Labor Contract Law, termination requires a “major change in objective circumstances.” This is a high bar, typically reserved for events such as relocation or merger. The introduction of AI did not meet that threshold. Nor did it render the employee’s role impossible to perform. The attempted reassignment, accompanied by a substantial pay cut, was deemed unreasonable. The dismissal was unlawful. This is a conceptual ruling. The judgment reframes AI adoption from external inevitability to internal decision. Companies are not being overtaken by automation. They are choosing to implement it. And in doing so, they retain the burden of its consequences. That distinction carries weight far beyond a single jurisdiction. Across markets, a narrative has taken hold: that AI-driven displacement is an unavoidable byproduct of progress. Courts are beginning to dismantle that framing. In a prior arbitration case in Beijing, the same principle emerged. AI replacement does not justify dismissal. The risks of technological iteration cannot be transferred wholesale onto workers. What we see is an early legal doctrine for the age of intelligent systems. Efficiency gains are permissible. Cost externalisation is not. The implications are already visible at the frontier. Reports of companies deploying digital replicas of former employees raise questions that sit between labor law and human rights. When human capability is captured, codified, and redeployed without the individual, the boundary between productivity and personhood begins to blur. Who owns the knowledge once it has been systematised? Where does employment end when performance can be indefinitely reproduced? And what constitutes fair compensation when a role is not eliminated, but absorbed? These are no longer theoretical questions. They are entering courtrooms. For leaders, the signal is direct. AI is not merely a tool for optimisation. It is infrastructure that redistributes value, risk, and accountability. The Hangzhou ruling makes clear that this redistribution cannot be engineered unilaterally. The costs of intelligence will be allocated. The question is whether organisations choose to do so deliberately, or wait for the courts to decide for them.

Over the past few weeks, I've had several insightful conversations with clients and candidates about the evolving #hiringpatterns in #Singapore and what this means for talent demand. Here’s my take: 🌍 Globalisation & Regionalisation is here to stay: Companies are relentlessly seeking ways to reduce operating costs, and tapping into high-caliber talent in lower-cost countries has become a key strategy. What began with outsourcing lower-skilled labor is now climbing the value chain, affecting roles across most functions. Singapore, with its higher costs, is increasingly scrutinised by organisations. For many larger companies, justifying a role in Singapore versus other locations has become crucial. When attrition occurs, the question often asked is, "Why do we need this role in Singapore?" 📊 Widespread Impact Across Industries: This trend isn't confined to just a few sectors. Recent data shows that over 60% of companies have adopted some form of offshoring, and this is only accelerating. The drive to optimize costs is influencing hiring decisions across the board. ⚠️ Caution Prevails: Both companies and talent are exercising caution. Recruitment is directly tied to confidence—if companies aren't confident in the market, they’re unlikely to expand teams or explore new markets. Similarly, candidates who lack confidence in the market are hesitant to make career moves. This collective caution is contributing to a slowdown in hiring and job opportunities. 🔄 Singapore’s Shift Toward Strategic, High-Value Roles: Singapore is undergoing a significant shift toward more strategic, higher-value positions. While this change should lead to more opportunities for tech-savvy, data-driven talent in the long term, it also highlights a mismatch with the current talent pool. Retraining and talent development have become essential focuses for both companies and the government. 🔮 Looking Ahead: Singapore’s job market is unlikely to return to what we considered "normal" a few years ago. The pandemic, rapid digitalization, and growth in technology have nudged companies to rethink their operations, with an increased focus on the bottom line driving changes in organizational structure. So, will the market improve? Absolutely. But the areas of demand will be different. The critical question for all job seekers is: Are your skills relevant in today’s market? If not, what steps do you need to take to develop them? #GRIT #HiringTrends #Singapore #TalentDemand #Globalisation #CareerDevelopment #FutureOfWork

The adoption of the ILO’s Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention, 2026 (No. 193), marks a major development in international labour law. As the first international labour standard devoted specifically to platform work, it firmly establishes that platform work is work and that those who perform it are entitled to labour protection. Crucially, self-employed platform workers fall squarely within its scope, extending international labour protection into areas in which they have historically received limited attention. To help navigate this new framework, I have prepared a preliminary analysis of the Convention’s text, interpretive structure, advances, and compromises. A central focus of the paper is the instrument’s broad personal scope. Self-employed platform workers are covered as a starting point throughout the text, while certain provisions allow specific protections to be tailored to their circumstances. I also examine Article 9 on employment-status classification. My reading is that the Convention crystallises the principle that classification must follow the factual reality of the relationship. Contractual labels cannot override how work is actually organised, including through algorithmic allocation, pricing, monitoring, ratings, account control, and deactivation. The provisions on automated systems represent another major development. By placing algorithmic management within labour standards, the Convention supports an approach of “decent work by design”. Accordingly, automated systems used to organise work should be built, deployed, and monitored so that fundamental labour rights are respected from the outset. The Convention also introduces rights to explanation, review, and appropriate human involvement when automated decisions significantly affect workers’ access to work and income. The analysis also addresses occupational safety and health, violence and harassment, remuneration and social security, personal data, account deactivation, applicable law, access to remedies, and the safeguards needed to prevent contractual circumvention. In a nutshell, despite the text being the result of compromises, Convention No. 193 establishes a binding foundation for legislation, collective bargaining, litigation, enforcement, and further standard-setting. The full preliminary analysis is attached below. A video presentation in which I discuss the Convention and its principal interpretive questions will follow shortly on York University - Osgoode Hall Law School’s channels. If you find it useful, please feel free to download it, share it with your network, or circulate it among colleagues working on platform work, labour law, public policy, and the regulation of technology. I would also love to hear how others read the Convention and the questions its implementation is likely to raise. #PlatformWork #LabourLaw #ILO #AlgorithmicManagement #InternationalLabourStandards #Convention193