Worker or Robot? Changing Job Descriptions, Job Security, and the Future of Unemployment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Entrance

Artificial intelligence has transcended its previous state and has become an integral part of daily business processes in numerous fields, including law, finance, accounting, human resources, manufacturing, logistics, customer service, and healthcare. Reports, correspondence, analyses, drawings, and calculations previously prepared by employees can now be completed more quickly using AI-powered systems.

This transformation is causing employers to redefine employees' job descriptions. While some tasks previously performed directly by an employee are being delegated to artificial intelligence, the employee may be asked to operate these systems, review AI outputs, or take on other responsibilities.

However, technological advancements do not give employers the right to unilaterally and unlimitedly change employment contracts. If an employee's wages are reduced, their status weakened, they are assigned to a different profession, or they are dismissed under the pretext of using artificial intelligence, the mandatory provisions of Turkish labor law continue to apply.

Therefore, the real question, even before asking "Will artificial intelligence replace workers?", is this:

To what extent can an employer modify an employee's job description by citing artificial intelligence as a justification?

Can employers bring artificial intelligence into the workplace?

The employer has the right to manage the workplace, determine production methods, and organize work. According to Article 399 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the employer may make general regulations and give specific instructions regarding the performance of work and the conduct of employees in the workplace.

In this context, the employer;

• You can start using new artificial intelligence software,
• You can digitize manual processes,
• You can ask employees to use AI-powered programs
• You can reorganize workflows,
• Reporting and control methods can be changed.

However, the limits of the right to manage are determined by the employment contract, law, collective bargaining agreements, workplace practices, the principle of good faith, and the employee's personal rights. The Supreme Court also accepts that changes within the scope of the employer's right to manage cannot be considered fundamental changes; however, the right to manage cannot be used arbitrarily, and it must be examined whether the change worsens the employee's working conditions. The introduction of artificial intelligence in the workplace is not inherently illegal. The legal assessment should be based on how the technology affects the employee's existing working conditions.

Can an employee's job description be changed due to artificial intelligence?

It is possible to change an employee's job description. However, not every job change is subject to the same legal regime.

If the change remains within the natural limits of the work the employee has undertaken under the contract, it can be considered within the employer's right to manage. Conversely, if the change worsens the employee's working conditions, lowers their professional status, or alters fundamental elements of the contract, it constitutes a "substantial change.".

For example, asking an accounting employee to prepare tables using an AI-powered program instead of manually is often a change in the method of fulfilling their work obligation. If the employee's salary, working hours, job level, and area of ​​responsibility remain unchanged, this can, as a rule, fall within the scope of management rights.

Conversely, for an accountant, being demoted to a lower-level position performing only data entry, stripped of authority, reduced pay, or weakened professional status on the grounds that artificial intelligence is now handling accounting tasks, could constitute a fundamental change.

Similarly, requiring a lawyer to use an AI-powered legal research system might fall within the natural boundaries of their job description. However, completely removing a lawyer's legal assessment authority, reducing them to a position where they only formally review AI outputs, and reducing their salary cannot be evaluated in the same way.

Which changes can be considered substantial changes?

If a job change due to the use of artificial intelligence leads to one of the following consequences, it is more likely to be considered a fundamental change under Article 22 of the Labor Law:

• Reducing the worker's wages or regular benefits,
• Moving an employee from a managerial or specialist position to a lower position,
• Assigning a worker to a task unrelated to their professional knowledge and experience,
• Despite a significant increase in responsibilities, the salary remained unchanged
• Changes to working hours, shift schedules, or the workplace that are detrimental to the employee,
• Eliminating promotion and career opportunities for workers,
• The nature of the work is constantly and significantly changed
• Artificial intelligence systems create intense and constant monitoring of employees,
• The worker is held unlimitedly responsible for all errors caused by artificial intelligence.

A mere change in the job title is not sufficient in itself. The court assesses the impact of the change on the employee's actual working conditions. Even if the employee's salary remains the same, a significant reduction in their professional reputation, authority, or career opportunities may constitute a substantial change.

The Supreme Court's practice also states that changes in working conditions should be evaluated taking into account the concrete effects of the change on the employee; and that the employer's managerial authority should be exercised in a manner that is fair, proportionate, and free from arbitrariness. How should this be done?

According to Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857, an employer can only make a fundamental change in working conditions by notifying the employee in writing.

The employee must accept the proposed change in writing within six working days. Silence, continuation of work, or a verbal affirmative response do not constitute written acceptance. A substantial change not accepted in writing is not binding on the employee.

The change also cannot be applied retroactively. The employee may be presented with a written offer containing the following content:

“Due to our company’s transition to an AI-powered production system, it is proposed that your current role as Quality Control Specialist be changed to AI Systems Quality Audit Specialist; and that the new job description be implemented while maintaining your salary and benefits.”

However, simply giving the employee a vague notification such as "The company has switched to artificial intelligence, you will now be working in a different department" may not be sufficient. The new role, salary, workplace, working hours, responsibilities, and the effective date of the change should be clearly stated.

Is an employee obligated to accept a job change?

If the change is substantial, the employee is not obligated to accept it. If the employee does not give written consent within six working days, the change is not binding on them.

An employee's lawful refusal of a substantial change in working conditions cannot, in itself, be considered insubordination or persistent refusal to perform their duties. The employer cannot forcibly impose the new working conditions if the employee does not accept them.

However, if the change of duties falls within the employer's management rights and the instruction is in accordance with the law, the employment contract, and the principle of good faith, the employee must comply with that instruction. Therefore, in every dispute, it must first be determined whether the change is substantial.

In Supreme Court rulings, a distinction is made between assignments that fall within the scope of management rights and do not worsen the employee's working conditions, and practices that alter the fundamental elements of the employment contract. Can an employee be dismissed if they do not accept the assignment?

An employee's refusal to accept a proposed change does not automatically give the employer the right to terminate the employment contract for just cause.

According to Article 22 of the Labor Law, an employer may terminate an employment contract by explaining in writing that the change is based on a valid reason or that there is another valid reason for termination, and by complying with the notice period.

This process is called "termination of change".

The employer must demonstrate that the old position has genuinely been eliminated, for example due to the transition to an artificial intelligence system, that it is not possible to employ the worker in their current role, and that the proposed new position aims to ensure the continuation of the employment relationship.

The employee can argue that the termination is invalid and request reinstatement. The court will examine whether the artificial intelligence justification is true and whether the employer has consistently implemented technological transformation.

The employer's statement, "We have started using artificial intelligence," is not sufficient. It must be clearly explained which jobs the new system eliminates, why the employee's position has become redundant, and whether the employee can be reassigned to another role.

Could Artificial Intelligence Eliminate a Worker's Position Entirely?

Article 18 of the Labor Law No. 4857 allows for the termination of an employment contract for valid reasons arising from the needs of the enterprise, workplace, or the work itself.

The complete elimination of a particular job due to the use of artificial intelligence may, under certain circumstances, constitute a technological or operational reason. However, a decision for technological transformation does not automatically render the employer's termination legally valid.

According to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, in cases of termination due to operational reasons;

• Whether or not a genuine business decision was made,
• Whether or not a surplus of employees has occurred as a result of a business decision,
• Whether the decision has been applied consistently,
• Whether the employer acted arbitrarily,
• Whether there is a causal link between the termination and the operational decision,
• Whether the termination is inevitable,
• Whether the principle of termination as a last resort has been followed,

This needs to be investigated. If a company is laying off customer service representatives on the grounds that it has started responding to customer requests with an artificial intelligence system, it must demonstrate that the system has actually been implemented and that it has reduced the related workforce needs.

Hiring new employees to perform the same job, employing subcontracted workers, or recreating the same positions with different titles shortly after the termination makes the validity of the termination questionable.

Is the employer obligated to provide training first?

Turkish labor law does not contain a general provision requiring unlimited training for all employees with every technological change. However, if the employer has the option of reassigning the employee to another position or providing reasonable training to adapt to the new system, resorting directly to termination without considering these options may create problems in terms of the principle of "termination as a last resort.".

If an employee is capable of using the new artificial intelligence system after a short training period, it may be considered disproportionate for the employer to terminate the employment contract outright on the grounds of "failure to adapt to technology.".

Conversely, if the new job requires entirely different expertise, long-term training, or a professional transformation that cannot reasonably be expected of the employer, the employer's retraining obligation may not be assessed within the same scope.

Therefore, in the employer's technological transformation process;

• Identifying the current competencies of employees,
• Identifying the skills required for the new roles,
• Providing a reasonable training and adaptation period,
• Evaluating open positions,
• To examine options for reassignment or replacement instead of termination,

This will significantly reduce legal risk.

Can artificial intelligence single-handedly determine an employee's performance and future?

In workplaces, artificial intelligence can be used not only for performing tasks but also for measuring employee performance, scheduling shifts, assigning tasks, making promotion, salary increase, and dismissal decisions.

However, the analysis of employee data by artificial intelligence constitutes personal data processing. According to Article 11 of the Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK), an employee has the right to object to a decision that is detrimental to them resulting from the analysis of their personal data exclusively through automated systems. If an AI system classifies an employee as "low-performing," "unsuitable for promotion," or "personnel recommended for dismissal," implementing this decision without any human evaluation carries significant legal risks.

The employer must subject the final decision to a genuine and effective human review; inform the employee about the evaluation criteria and provide them with the opportunity to appeal against erroneous results.

A similar approach is developing from a comparative law perspective. The European Union Artificial Intelligence Regulation considers certain AI systems used in recruitment, promotion, dismissal, task assignment, and monitoring employee performance as high-risk. Employers are required to inform affected employees and employee representatives before using a high-risk system in the workplace. While these provisions may not directly apply to every Turkish employer, they establish an important legal standard for future regulations. Will it literally turn workers into robots?

From a legal perspective, a worker is not merely a means of providing production output. A worker is a natural person with personal rights, a private life, professional reputation, the right to rest, and human dignity.

Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations imposes on the employer the obligation to protect the employee's personality and to ensure an order in the workplace that conforms to the principles of honesty. Therefore, the unlimited monitoring of every action of employees through artificial intelligence, their continuous scoring, subjection to unattainable performance targets, or their management through algorithmic commands outside of human will is unacceptable. Legally, the algorithm is not an independent decision-making body that assumes the employer's responsibility. The defense that "the algorithm made the decision" does not absolve the employer of legal responsibility.

Employer;

• From choosing the artificial intelligence system to be used,
• From what data has been entered into the system,
• From the evaluation criteria,
• From discriminatory or erroneous results,
• From the working conditions applied to the worker,
• From final management and termination decisions,

He remains responsible.

Therefore, the "robotization" of workers is not an inevitable legal consequence. The real risk is that artificial intelligence will cease to be a tool that supports human decision-making and will instead become an unchecked authority that constantly manages and evaluates employees.

Will Artificial Intelligence Increase Unemployment?

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment is not one-sided. While some tasks are becoming automated, new jobs and areas of expertise are also emerging.

According to the International Labour Organization's 2025 study, approximately one-quarter of the world's workforce is employed in occupations that could be affected to some degree by productive artificial intelligence. However, the study indicates that it is more likely that tasks and ways of working will transform rather than jobs disappearing entirely. Office and administrative roles are among the areas with the highest exposure, while the impact of AI is also increasing in highly digitized professional and technical roles. The K Forum's 2025 employers' survey predicts that technological change, economic conditions, demographic developments, and the green transition could create 170 million new jobs and displace 92 million existing jobs by 2030. This estimates a net increase of 78 million jobs, but these figures are projections based on the expectations of employers participating in the study, not final results. AI does not indicate that all workers will be unemployed. However, the creation and disappearance of new jobs will not occur simultaneously for the same people, sectors, or countries.

The opening of an AI specialist position at a software company does not automatically mean that a data entry worker who has lost their job in another sector can directly fill this position. Therefore, the most significant social risk of the AI ​​transformation is not only total unemployment, but also skills mismatch, wage inequality, increased difficulty for young people to access entry-level jobs, and the exclusion of certain worker groups from the labor market. The ILO's assessments for 2026 also highlight risks, particularly in terms of employment opportunities for young workers, employee autonomy, job quality, and inequalities. How should employers act during this transformation?

For a legally compliant transition, artificial intelligence systems should not be used directly as a tool for dismissal. First, it must be determined which tasks will be automated, which tasks will require human supervision, and what new skills employees will need.

It is important for employers to prepare a written AI policy and inform employees about the system's purpose, operation, and impact on working conditions.

Job descriptions should be clearly updated, substantial changes should require written consent from employees, and reasonable training opportunities should be provided. There should be genuine human oversight of AI outputs; performance, promotion, and termination decisions should not be based solely on algorithmic results.

The ILO also recommends that the AI ​​transformation should be implemented with an approach that complements the skills of employees rather than replacing them; and that social dialogue should be established between employers, employees, and employee representatives. Employers can decide to use AI technologies in the workplace and reorganize the work structure accordingly. However, technological transformation does not allow for unlimited changes to the employee's job description.

If a change of duties increases the worker's salary, status, professional position, working hours, workplace, or core responsibilities, Article 22 of the Labor Law must be applied, and the worker's written consent must be obtained.

If an employee's job title is completely eliminated due to artificial intelligence, termination may be considered. However, the employer cannot simply state that they have switched to AI. They must demonstrate that the position has truly been eliminated, that the employee cannot be reassigned to another role, and that termination is a last resort.

Artificial intelligence will take over some tasks, narrow the scope of some professions, and create new ones. However, the fundamental aim of labor law is not to hinder technological development, but to prevent the cost of technological transformation from being borne solely by the worker.

The future of work will not consist of robots. However, an artificial intelligence transformation that disregards workers' human dignity, personal rights, professional development, and job security could effectively turn workers into production elements controlled by algorithms.

Therefore, the fundamental principle in the age of artificial intelligence should be:

Technology should be used to support human labor, not to replace it; the final decision regarding a worker's working conditions should always be based on a lawful, transparent, and accountable human will.