The question arises: can an employee be fired simply because their position has been replaced by AI? On December 26, the Beijing Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau released typical labor dispute arbitration cases for 2025. One case involving a dispute triggered by AI replacing a job clearly established that "AI replacing a position ≠ legal grounds for termination," providing a reference for resolving labor disputes in the era of artificial intelligence.
The case itself is straightforward. Liu Mou had been responsible for traditional manual map data collection at a technology company for many years. In early 2024, the company fully transitioned to AI-driven automated data collection, dissolving Liu's department and eliminating his position. At the end of 2024, the company terminated Liu's labor contract, citing that "major changes occurred in the objective circumstances relied upon when concluding the labor contract, rendering it impossible to continue performance." Liu subsequently applied for arbitration.
The arbitration commission ruled that the company's termination was illegal, pointing out that technological innovation lacks the irresistibility and unforeseeability required by the legal definition of "objective circumstances." Terminating a labor contract due to job replacement by AI essentially shifts the normal risks of technological iteration onto the employee.
Following the publication of this典型案例 (typical case), most supporters believe the ruling strengthens the "safety net" for workers' rights and demonstrates the law's role in safeguarding individual dignity. However, some express concern that excessively restricting corporate technological transformation could stifle market vitality and even foster employee complacency.
This debate precisely reflects the deep-seated tension between efficiency and fairness, innovation and stability during times of transformative change. Although the worker won this particular arbitration case, it is crucial to recognize that the wave of AI technology is unstoppable; it is fundamentally restructuring production methods by reintegrating new factors like data, computing power, and algorithms, leading to a significant leap in social productivity.
In other words, the issue of "technological unemployment" will persist. This is not merely an individual career crossroads but a real dilemma many workers must face under the impact of AI. Resolving this requires a concerted effort from individuals, enterprises, and the broader social support system.
For workers, the urgent task is to shift their mindset and proactively pursue skill upgrades. For instance, Liu in this case could learn to operate, manage, or maintain the very AI system that replaced his original role. Transitioning from performing repetitive tasks to overseeing AI work—such as review, optimization, exception handling, particularly identifying and correcting AI hallucinations—or leveraging their business understanding to become "AI trainers" or "human-machine collaboration engineers" transforms human experience into executable instructions for AI.
For the social support system, there is a need to proactively build a social security framework adaptable to flexible employment, strengthen algorithm oversight, and help workers bridge the "digital divide" through lifelong vocational skill training systems. This is not only an essential mission for social security but also key to ensuring the equitable sharing of technological dividends.
In the face of workplace transformations driven by AI, the balancing act of the rule of law becomes particularly important. The core principle lies in adhering to the alignment of rights, responsibilities, and benefits: enterprises have the right to technological innovation but must also bear social responsibility towards their employees. This requires companies to first seek proper安置 (placement) of employees through measures like negotiated role transfers and skills training, rather than unilaterally passing transformation costs onto workers.
Throughout the history of technological revolutions, from steam engines to computers to AI, each leap in productive forces has been accompanied by adjustments in production relations. The mission of the rule of law is not to hinder technological progress but to shepherd change, ensuring that technological advancement and human well-being move in the same direction.
The tide of artificial intelligence is irreversible, and human-machine collaboration is the inevitable trend. Ordinary workers can only secure their footing in the intelligent era by actively embracing change and diligently learning AI application skills. Enterprises must also recognize that technological upgrading and social responsibility are not opposing forces but dual drivers of sustainable development. The law does not protect outdated productive forces, but it must safeguard transitional justice. Only in this way can we truly navigate the giant waves of technological change, allowing the future vision of human-machine symbiosis to be filled with the beauty of efficiency while also shining with the light of fairness.
Comments