One quick online search, a few clicks, and your boss might know more about you than you think.
Across California, companies now use artificial intelligence to scan applicant backgrounds, monitor staff behavior, and even sift through thousands of social media posts searching for language that hints at drugs or violence.
Employers track everything from emails that indicate simmering unhappiness to every keystroke typed during work hours. All for the sake of streamlining hiring and keeping a closer eye on workers.
Now, California lawmakers are making a push to reel in the unchecked use of these powerful tools.
Senate Bill 7, known as the No Robo Bosses Act, champions the idea that no machine should have the final say over someone’s livelihood. State Senator Jerry McNerney put it simply, stating, “When it comes to people’s lives and their careers, you don’t want these automated decision-making systems to operate without any oversight.”
If the proposal clears its next hurdle in the Assembly’s Labor and Employment Committee on June 25, it could soon be illegal for companies to base major decisions like promotions or firings solely on what software recommends.
The draft requires people to step in and personally review any AI-generated decisions. More than that, managers would need to dig up their own supporting evidence before moving forward with discipline or demotion.
Surveillance, Hiring, and Pushback
It also seeks to outlaw using tech that claims it can read workers’ minds, predict intentions, or judge personalities from digital crumbs left on work systems. The list of products spooking lawmakers includes eye trackers, tools that log every tap and click, and programs that scan emails for burnout.
Florida’s Veriato boasts its software can root out “disgruntled workers and possible security risks,” while Boston-based Cogito promotes its tools to managers hoping to eavesdrop on call center conversations for emotional cues. Neither company responded to questions about whether their offerings cross new red lines.
While the original version of the bill wanted to ban automated hiring outright, strong resistance from business groups led to a rewrite. Companies said most would be unable to comply. Thanks to those changes, new tools that comb through thousands of public web sources for “violent language” or “suggestive content” during the job application process get a reprieve, at least for now.
The California Chamber of Commerce, standing with other big trade groups and tech giants like Apple and Google, calls the rules “onerous and impractical.” In a May letter, they warned, “Missteps would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers,” and pointed out that banks rely on advanced software to guard against fraud.
Business leaders argue these rapidly advancing systems allow for efficiency nobody wants to lose. Critics, however, remain wary of a digital manager that never calls in sick or has a bad day, but also never shows compassion.
If regulation for automated management becomes law, California’s labor commissioner would have the power to fine violators five hundred dollars and even open the door to lawsuits from employees who feel a bot treated them unfairly.
“The need for regulatory frameworks for accountability and responsible development and deployment have become ever more urgent,” a state analysis argued.
Meanwhile in Washington, Republican-backed proposals seek to block states from putting their own rules on AI, calling for a ten-year nationwide freeze. California lawmakers, not convinced, fired back in a letter to senators, warning that “the United States must take the lead on identifying and setting common sense guardrails for responsible and safe AI development and deployment.” Media commentary on workplace AI hallucination concerns has intensified as this debate continues.
