Co-determination: Works Councils, Unions and the Nordic Model Meet the Algorithm

All courses / AI Boss / Module 5 / Chapter 23

Learning objectives

After the lesson the participant can:

• Distinguish information, consultation, negotiation and co-determination or consent, with a national example of each.
• Explain why almost every AI boss is technical equipment suited to monitor under German law.
• Describe the failure modes of freezing and drift and how change classes avoid both.
• Draft change classes for an agreement by reference to the fields of a delegation profile.

Key concepts

Four degrees of participation

Information lets representatives examine a subject; consultation is dialogue before the employer decides; negotiation obliges the employer to seek agreement but lets it decide; co-determination or consent means the employer may not act without agreement or a substitute decision.

Freezing and drift

Freezing treats every change as a new introduction, so nothing changes or dozens of changes are rubber-stamped. Drift lets version 9 run with inputs nobody negotiated under an agreement for version 1.

Three change classes

Class 1, renegotiation of a change to the bargain itself; Class 2, approval within agreed bounds; Class 3, information for a change that leaves every field of the profile and notice unchanged.

Release manifest

The document required for every release: version, profile fields changed, proposed class, tests and notice diff. For a procured system it is put in the tender.

Reclassification upwards

Representatives may require a higher class and the employer may not lower one; doubt moves a change up a class, so the employer bears the cost of a wrong label.

Interactive exercises

Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.

Teaching plan

Discussion

1. Nordvik's unions cannot veto a change but sit at the table for every important one; Hansa's Konzernbetriebsrat can withhold consent. How does each arrangement shape the employer's behaviour before a change?
2. Danish municipalities forbid an individual employee to consent to a control measure. What problem does that rule solve?
3. Classification follows a written test applied to the profile diff, not the engineer's sense of size. Why does the chapter distrust the sense of size?

Written exercise

Self-test

Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.

1. Under the annex to KBV-IT-2024, which class is the introduction of a behavioural input such as throughput or absence history?

   1. Class 3, information in the monthly change log
   2. Class 2, approval by the joint IT committee within 10 working days
   3. Class 1, renegotiation requiring the consent of the Konzernbetriebsrat
   4. No class, because inputs are an engineering matter
   Show the answer

   C. Class 1, renegotiation requiring the consent of the Konzernbetriebsrat
   A behavioural input changes the bargain itself. The throughput-based capacity factor removed under AIDR-0651 is the example the annex was written to catch.

2. How was the capacity field added after MDR-HM-0001 classified, and why?

   1. Class 1, because any new input reopens the whole agreement
   2. Class 2, because it is a new but not behavioural input, so the joint committee approved it
   3. Class 3, because it was a defect fix with no change to inputs
   4. It was not classified, because team leaders may change inputs at will
   Show the answer

   B. Class 2, because it is a new but not behavioural input, so the joint committee approved it
   The field is entered by the team leader without reasons and records nothing about the handler's behaviour, so it falls within the agreed bounds for committee approval.

3. What is the chapter's answer to open question Q8?

   1. Agreements should be renegotiated in full at every release, with the conciliation committee deciding wherever the parties do not agree in time
   2. Co-determination should be suspended for systems that change monthly
   3. Suppliers should decide which changes are important enough to report
   4. Agreements should govern change, not versions, sorting each release by what changes for the people managed
   Show the answer

   D. Agreements should govern change, not versions, sorting each release by what changes for the people managed
   The statutes already ask whether a change is important, significant or substantial, not which version is running. Change classes tied to the profile's fields avoid both freezing and drift.