This page contains automatically translated content.

05/23/2018 | Porträts und Geschichten

"We must not become more and more like the machines".

Sociologist Prof. Dr. Kerstin Jürgens has been researching the digitalization of work and the consequences for employees for years. From 2015 to 2017, she co-chaired the Hans Böckler Foundation's "Work of the Future" commission together with Reiner Hoffmann, chairman of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB). She talks to the university magazine "publik" about work in the age of robots, the role of humans and a public change of mood.

Image: Sonja Rode/Light Catch.

publik: Ms. Jürgens, how will our children be working in 30 years?
Jürgens: In many areas, not all that different from today. There are many areas, such as health care, education and social work, in which new technologies can only be used to a certain extent. But some professions will dwindle or disappear, others will be added. People will not become superfluous, but digitalization is nevertheless a process of upheaval.

publik: The topic of technological change is fraught with fear. Are we driven by a force of nature, or can we shape the change?
Jürgens: Behind this change are decisions made by people, and of course it can be shaped. The widespread feeling of helplessness stems more from the high pace of technological and social change. That's why we need to pause and think about how we want to use artificial intelligence, for example - or where the boundaries lie.

publik: A reflection that has already begun?
Jürgens: The debate is finally picking up speed. Five years ago, a study shocked us, according to which 47 percent of American jobs are threatened by rationalization. That irritated society, especially politicians. The same is true for the big question of data privacy, to which people expect answers. Until two or three years ago, people only ever described the challenges posed by digitization, but now there are concrete approaches to solutions from the research community - and they need to be taken up.

publik: Which players can shape the future? And how?
Jürgens: First and foremost, it's the legislature, which has to ensure data protection, for example. In the case of companies such as Alphabet/Google, they would have to collect taxes here in the country in accordance with their actual activities.

publik: And can they do that?
Jürgens: The individual governments are not as powerless as they often make themselves out to be, especially when they are looking for a solution together for Europe. That also applies to new forms of work: In order to provide social security for crowd or gig workers, for example, the concept of employee must be reformed. An "orderer principle" could also curb wage dumping and competition, because a German client would then have to pay the minimum wage according to German rules, even for a crowd worker in India. And the company to which rights are linked no longer bears as a starting point; rather, the value chain would have to be regulated. This would, for example, prevent employers from circumventing co-determination by breaking up factories into tiny units.
 

"The distribution question is posing itself anew"

publik: Does technological change alter the balance of power between companies and employees?
Jürgens: That depends on which industry you work in. In the future, there will tend to be a shortage of workers in areas such as IT and software development, in health professions or medicine. That's where it's easier to assert interests. In other occupational fields, rationalization is taking place, for example in logistics. Many warehouses are already almost deserted. Society is not running out of work, but there will be shifts.  We therefore need a qualification offensive so that no one is left behind.

publik: That's exactly what went wrong in the USA, many say. With the familiar consequences at the ballot box...
Jürgens: Structural change must and can be organized: through qualification, through control.

publik: Does that mean that the strengths of an active welfare state are now becoming apparent?
Jürgens: Yes. And not only of the welfare state, but also of social partnership based on the German model. Incidentally, this already proved its worth in 2008/2009, when the consequences of the financial crisis for the labor market were cushioned by short-time work or working time accounts. In the near future, too, we will need an active labor market and working time policy.

publik: So will we be working less?
Jürgens: Technological progress poses the distribution question anew. Intelligent machines and algorithms can be something positive if they increase prosperity and this prosperity is distributed fairly. We need to seriously discuss this in areas that are heavily automated. Automation saves on personnel costs and should increase productivity. This can be used to reduce working hours, combined with further training. Qualification must not end with the start of a career. Universities will have a new role to play here: they will have to position themselves as providers of continuing education in the foreseeable future.
 

"A machine should not make a decision on its own"

publik: While we're on the subject of working hours: Some physicians expect a life expectancy of 120 years or more in the future. Do we have to work longer over our entire lives?
Jürgens: I would be cautious about that. There are professions that are extremely wear and tear. Now you can say that the lifting robotics help the nurse to get the patient out of bed. But it is still a strenuous profession. There may be groups that will be able to work longer in the future, but a longer life does not mean a longer working life.   

publik: Does digitization eliminate the separation between private time and professional activity?
Jürgens: We are becoming more flexible in terms of time and space. That's an advantage for parents and caregivers. But that must not lead to round-the-clock work. You know, we have to perceive people with their needs and shape change from that position - instead of trying to become more and more like machines.

publik: There is that tendency, isn't there? Algorithms that sort job applications, rigid workflows, exact formulation specifications in call centers...
Jürgens: We have to strengthen the sensuality of people. Digital media in schools? Okay. Networked universities? Also important. But in the end, it's more crucial than ever to foster humanity and empathy. We've reached a point in history where machines are getting smarter than people. But what humans can do even better than machines is: understand other humans. We can't let them take that away from us. We must clarify which decisions we leave to algorithms and regularly check what the consequences are. A machine should never make a decision on its own: not passing judgment in a court of law, not making a medical diagnosis, not selecting personnel.

 

Interview: Sebastian Mense and David Wüstehube