The Case for Selective Non-Transparency in AI-Mediated Work: A Workers Rights Framework

Abstract This article advances a labor rights argument for selective non-transparency in AI-mediated work, framed through educational labor yet generalizable across the United States. The central claim asserts that blanket requirements to disclose all AI-assisted methods reconfigure managerial power by converting process knowledge into a surveillance substrate, thereby diminishing autonomy, chilling professional judgment, and enabling rapid deskilling. Synthesizing U.S. labor and privacy frameworks—especially interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act regarding electronic monitoring—alongside emerging state initiatives on automated decision systems, the analysis demonstrates how expansive process transparency risks infringing protected concerted activity while normalizing function creep in algorithmic management. Empirical literature on electronic performance monitoring and mental health indicates consistent associations with increased stress, reduced trust, and lower perceived control, outcomes that are antithetical to high-quality professional practice in education and other knowledge sectors. Case studies from teaching, logistics, creative industries, and professional services illustrate that transparency asymmetries matter: workers benefit when transparency applies to employer systems and outcomes, not to every micro-step of worker method. The article proposes an accountability model centered on transparency of outcomes and systems with privacy of process: results-oriented evaluation, periodic audits rather than continuous telemetry, worker participation in AI governance, privacy-preserving assurance, and contractual or statutory limits on process capture. This normative and policy framework preserves public accountability and ethical AI use while safeguarding method discretion, intellectual capital, and human dignity—conditions under which AI functions as augmentation for labor rather than instrumentation of control.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
Published
2025-12-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-025-09567-z
Primary Topic
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Case for Selective Non-Transparency in AI-Mediated Work: A Workers Rights Framework

James Hutson, Daniel Plate
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
article

The Case for Selective Non-Transparency in AI-Mediated Work: A Workers Rights Framework

James Hutson, Daniel Plate
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article advances a labor rights argument for selective non-transparency in AI-mediated work, framed through educational labor yet generalizable across the United States. The central claim asserts that blanket requirements to disclose all AI-assisted methods reconfigure managerial power by converting process knowledge into a surveillance substrate, thereby diminishing autonomy, chilling professional judgment, and enabling rapid deskilling. Synthesizing U.S. labor and privacy frameworks—especially interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act regarding electronic monitoring—alongside emerging state initiatives on automated decision systems, the analysis demonstrates how expansive process transparency risks infringing protected concerted activity while normalizing function creep in algorithmic management. Empirical literature on electronic performance monitoring and mental health indicates consistent associations with increased stress, reduced trust, and lower perceived control, outcomes that are antithetical to high-quality professional practice in education and other knowledge sectors. Case studies from teaching, logistics, creative industries, and professional services illustrate that transparency asymmetries matter: workers benefit when transparency applies to employer systems and outcomes, not to every micro-step of worker method. The article proposes an accountability model centered on transparency of outcomes and systems with privacy of process: results-oriented evaluation, periodic audits rather than continuous telemetry, worker participation in AI governance, privacy-preserving assurance, and contractual or statutory limits on process capture. This normative and policy framework preserves public accountability and ethical AI use while safeguarding method discretion, intellectual capital, and human dignity—conditions under which AI functions as augmentation for labor rather than instrumentation of control.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
Lindenwood University (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Digital Economy and Work Transformation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.