We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Data and Algorithms at Work: The Case for Worker Technology Rights
UC Berkeley Labor Center report
Algorithms should not be used as a substitute for human decision making. The growing complexity of algorithmic systems means that even their developers may not understand how they arrive at conclusions—let alone the employers deploying these systems. Employers should therefore be prohibited from relying exclusively or even mainly on algorithms when making consequential decisions like hiring, firing, discipline, or promotion. Instead, humans should have a substantial and meaningful role in the decision, drawing in other sources of information.AI Verified source (Nov 2021)
5mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Directly on point: in the source’s 'Use of Algorithms' section, the authors say employers should be prohibited from relying exclusively or even mainly on algorithms for consequential decisions such as hiring, and that humans should have a substantial, meaningful role. That makes a stance on banning fully automated hiring decisions without human review clearly determinable. ([laborcenter.berkeley.edu](https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/data-algorithms-at-work/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 15d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote explicitly supports this: it says employers should be "prohibited from relying exclusively or even mainly on algorithms" for consequential decisions "like hiring," and that humans must have a "substantial and meaningful role" instead. That strongly supports banning fully automated hiring decisions without human review. ([laborcenter.berkeley.edu](https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Data-and-Algorithms-at-Work.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 15d ago
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Relevant: the source’s policy framework says employers should be prohibited from relying mainly on algorithms for consequential decisions such as hiring, firing, discipline, or promotion, and that humans should have a substantial and meaningful role. That gives a clear, determinable stance in favor of human-in-the-loop oversight in a high-stakes domain, even though it does not use the exact term "agentic AI." ([laborcenter.berkeley.edu](https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Data-and-Algorithms-at-Work.pdf?utm_source=openai))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 15d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote is clearly supportive: it says algorithms should not replace human decision-making, employers should not rely mainly on them for consequential decisions like hiring or firing, and humans should have a "substantial and meaningful role" instead. That directly implies support for human-in-the-loop oversight in a high-stakes domain, even though the source discusses workplace algorithms rather than all agentic AI systems. ([laborcenter.berkeley.edu](https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Data-and-Algorithms-at-Work.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 15d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified. The exact passage appears verbatim in the provided PDF source URL in the “5. Use of Algorithms” section, and the PDF title page identifies the document as “Data and Algorithms at Work: The Case for Worker Technology Rights” and dates it November 2021. The report is also presented on the UC Berkeley Labor Center site with that same title; under the document-author rule, attributing the quote to the report title is acceptable. ([laborcenter.berkeley.edu](https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Data-and-Algorithms-at-Work.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 15d ago
replying to Data and Algorithms at Work: The Case for Worker Technology Rights