3 ms·

Who is the "you" here? Workers certainly do not get to probe the internals of the algorithm that fired them. For liability reasons I'm sure human resource manag

Who is the "you" here? Workers certainly do not get to probe the internals of the algorithm that fired them. For liability reasons I'm sure human resource management systems are not exposed to researchers. Maybe a court could but in practice I don't think that's happening and the bar to get that kind of review is incredibly high. Only the company itself is actually in practice going to be testing their system but they only do so with a view to their own interests.

jpalomaki 5y ago
That should be defined in the legislation. Maybe something where the employee can for example file a complaint of unfair practises and then the issue is investigated. This is pretty much the same case when humans are accused of unfair or discriminatory decions. I think the GDPR legislation already takes small steps to this direction.
- contravariant 5y ago
  This is nothing to do with GDPR, this is about workers' right against unfair dismissal. Being dismissed without warning, because of rules you cannot know, without explanation or right to appeal is ridiculous.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    It has a lot to do with GDPR, because GDPR article 22 explicitly prohibits all kinds of severe decisions (including but not limited to dismissal) from being done by an automated unappealable system. Like, even if the dismissal was after a warning, because of rules well known in advance and with an accurate explanation, GDPR would still prohibit making this decision solely through automated processing, there has to be a place for human intervention.
    - contravariant 5y ago
      Trying to protect basic workers' rights through legislation that protects personal information is downright weird. You'd think workers should be better protected than just random people who share their personal information. Article 22 even acknowledges this to some extent, making an explicit exception for people who have some other kind of contract (including employment) and for which the law has defined suitable safeguards. U.S. employment legislation is indeed not a sufficient safeguard, but the fact that it insufficiently protects privacy is somewhat of an understatement.

jpalomaki 5y ago

That should be defined in the legislation. Maybe something where the employee can for example file a complaint of unfair practises and then the issue is investigated. This is pretty much the same case when humans are accused of unfair or discriminatory decions. I think the GDPR legislation already takes small steps to this direction.

contravariant 5y ago
This is nothing to do with GDPR, this is about workers' right against unfair dismissal. Being dismissed without warning, because of rules you cannot know, without explanation or right to appeal is ridiculous.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  It has a lot to do with GDPR, because GDPR article 22 explicitly prohibits all kinds of severe decisions (including but not limited to dismissal) from being done by an automated unappealable system. Like, even if the dismissal was after a warning, because of rules well known in advance and with an accurate explanation, GDPR would still prohibit making this decision solely through automated processing, there has to be a place for human intervention.
  - contravariant 5y ago
    Trying to protect basic workers' rights through legislation that protects personal information is downright weird. You'd think workers should be better protected than just random people who share their personal information. Article 22 even acknowledges this to some extent, making an explicit exception for people who have some other kind of contract (including employment) and for which the law has defined suitable safeguards. U.S. employment legislation is indeed not a sufficient safeguard, but the fact that it insufficiently protects privacy is somewhat of an understatement.