Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says

I don't begin to understand why the bank should have to "justify" its decision to replace workers with AI in the first place. Maybe it works better? Maybe it's worse? Who cares? Shareholders bear the risk of getting it wrong, and can fire management if they think they aren't doing a good job of getting it right.

If the humans are in fact more expensive than the chatbots, it's not like the shareholders just say "oh, ok, I guess we'll just take lower compensation for slightly more risk". Instead, they'll pressure management to pass the higher cost on to the customer.

If you want to "protect workers" by making sure they get paid x amount regardless of whether they're the most efficient way to achieve y goal, why not just do that through taxes? You're basically taxing bank shareholders and subsidizing employees, but with a lot of extra steps. Plus, the employees have to actually show up to work every day, which I understand can be kind of a drag.

> I don't begin to understand why the bank should have to "justify" its decision to replace workers with AI in the first place.

Because the workers belong to a union, and in Australia unions have the statutory right to contest mass layoff actions at a tribunal.

Not everywhere is so weighted toward the employer as the U.S.