BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Appeal to Emotion, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,889 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,459 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.4% and a BS Rank of 9% (29,209 of 31,900 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.60% of the article peer group.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated our workplaces, where many employers have sought to boost productivity, cut labor costs, and eliminate jobs via the technology.
A 2025 Pew Research Center poll found that 1 in 5 workers now use AI in their jobs.
Organized labor’s response to the AI has been fraught.
Where some see an inevitable shift that simply needs to be regulated and could potentially even create jobs, others see a dangerous trend that will result in further job losses along with a variety of other problems.
The tension is succinctly summarized by a recent <em>Politico </em>headline: “Voters fear AI.
Unions want the jobs.”
The ongoing debate over data centers encapsulates this tension.
Across the country, community members have spearheaded efforts to block their construction over concerns about water depletion, higher utility bills, noise, and air pollution.
In March, Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) introduced the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Data Center Moratorium Act, which would institute a pause on data center construction until federal safeguards can be established.
“We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue,” said Sanders in a statement on the bill.
“The time for action is now.”
The legislative effort is backed by multiple unions including National Nurses United (NNU), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and the Association of Flight Attendants.
“The unchecked explosion of AI data centers is a public health crisis, an environmental crisis, and a workers’ rights crisis,” declared NNU co-president Jamie Brown at a press conference announcing the bill.
However, there are also many unions that oppose any moratorium on data centers, particularly building trade unions that believe such construction can stimulate economic growth for struggling communities and provide members with work.
“We need the guardrails on AI, we just don’t think that a moratorium is the way to get there,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler told <em>Punchbowl News</em> in June.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) is even calling on members to contact their congressional representatives and make social media posts connected to the issue.
“I’m a proud IBEW member and I oppose any bans on data center construction since these bans would eliminate good-paying union jobs,” reads suggested text for a social media post.
In June, Michigan Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer appeared at the groundbreaking ceremony for Oracle and OpenAI’s planned 1.4-gigawatt data center in the state’s Saline Township.
Alongside OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Whitmer told the assembled crowd that the state was setting an example for “the rest of the world” by ensuring the “responsible adoption” of AI.
The project was opposed by many residents and local lawmakers.
Rep.
Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) called it “disgusting” and said she was “disappointed” with Whitmer, while Democratic State Rep.
Dylan Wegela of Garden City said it was a “complete betrayal of the working class” and that the governor had sold out “Michigan to big tech billionaires.”
However, the data center was backed by North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU), and its president, Sean McGarvey, was present at the groundbreaking.
“America’s ability to lead in the next era of innovation depends, in part, on America’s ability to build, and our members are proud to be helping make that future possible,” he told the crowd.
Speaking to <em>Politico</em> in June, Senator Sanders’s chief political adviser, Faiz Shakir, said that the data center jobs heralded by certain unions won’t necessarily establish lasting occupations.
“It’s fine to say that [data centers will] be built with good-paying union jobs now — and I hope that that’s the case — but what we’re also looking for on behalf of the working class of America is long-term sustainability of jobs,” he said.
“It doesn’t help a lot in our view if you have a short-term infusion of good, union paying jobs at the cost of the decimation of many, many long-term jobs.”
Support for AI within organized labor is receiving a boost from AI companies themselves.
Last year, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced that it would create an AI training hub in New York City via $23 million from Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic.
“The industry funding is part of a drive by U.S. tech companies to reshape education with generative A.I. chatbots,” noted <em>The</em> <em>New York Times</em>.
“These tools, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot, can produce humanlike essays, research summaries and class quizzes.”
AFT President Randi Weingarten said the academy was inspired by the work of other unions, like the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and that the idea for the National Academy for AI Instruction sprang from a partnership established between Microsoft and the AFL-CIO in 2023.
“AI holds tremendous promise but huge challenges — and it’s our job as educators to make sure AI serves our students and society, not the other way around,” declared Weingarten.
“The direct connection between a teacher and their kids can never be replaced by new technologies, but if we learn how to harness it, set commonsense guardrails and put teachers in the driver’s seat, teaching and learning can be enhanced.”
The way Weingarten is selling the hub is seemingly at odds with that of Roy Bahat, who first proposed the idea.
In a LinkedIn post made shortly after the announcement, Bahat, who heads the venture capital firm Bloomberg Beta, essentially admits that the center can serve as a test case for applying AI more broadly — or, as Nolan Higdon put it in <em>Truthdig</em>: “Teachers are guinea pigs in Big Tech’s broader project to reengineer labor, one profession at a time.”
“If we can figure out how teachers should teach with and about AI, we can affect the lives of millions of educators, and millions and millions of young people,” explains Bahat in the post.
“And if we can figure out how to train teachers on using AI, maybe we can figure it out for other occupations.”
The training hub, and union leadership’s wider connections to AI, have sparked criticism from labor activists and rank-and-file members.
“Using AI compliments, intensifies, and accelerates privatization of the public sector, and that’s in addition to any harm that it’s doing to work,” author and teacher union activist Lois Weiner told <em>Truthout</em>.
“The labor movement should be contesting the idea that the imposition of AI is inevitable.
That’s the labor movement’s responsibility.”
“What makes this so disturbing is that it raises fully the problem of union democracy,” she added.
“These decisions were made without informed debate with union members.
They have a moral responsibility to community and the kids we serve to have a voice.”
Trevor Griffey, a labor historian, lecturer at UCLA and UC Irvine, and vice president of legislation for AFT Local 1474, told <em>Truthout</em> that, since the collaboration was established, the AFT national has focused too much on trying to help teachers adapt to AI, and too little on organizing worker power in school districts.
He believes unions should go on the offensive and push for deeper reforms, as AI is already having a dramatic impact.
He points out that groups like the California Federation of Labor Unions are trying to bring together statewide unions in California to lobby on a range of bills targeting the dangers of Big Tech.
“The question is less where unions stand on AI or other forms of technology, and more how they organize to resist the unsafe and unethical use of automation at work,” he told <em>Truthout</em>.
“Unions need to invest in strategic research and organizing to support workers most likely to be negatively impacted by employers’ adoption of AI-powered technology — both at work, and in building political power sufficient to prevent the unethical and unsafe use of new technology.
Beyond just regulating AI, unions should push for full employment and/or universal income policies to mitigate the disruptions to people’s lives that AI-related layoffs are already having.”
These sentiments were echoed by Vishal Reddy, a union negotiator for nursing home workers and the executive director of WorkFour.
“Unions at the local, international, and federation levels need to put real money and organizing capacity into figuring out which affirmative AI-related demands — four-day workweek, UBI [universal basic income], AI dividends, and so on — actually resonate with a wide swath of workers,” he told <em>Truthout</em>.
“Just like in bargaining, we want to know which affirmative policy would be most deeply and widely felt, so we can prioritize it in the fights ahead, including May Day 2028.”
“That means cross-union convenings, issue campaigns, commissioned polling and research, and real resourcing behind the bargaining fights where these policies are already surfacing,” Reddy added.
“For example, if a fight over a 32-hour workweek is on the table somewhere, that’s exactly where the labor movement should be throwing its weight.”
Speakers
13speakers61%attributed speech562writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDylan Wegela
27 attributed words3.0% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.