Organized labor in Ohio is throwing its weight behind a bill that would put new guardrails on how state agencies use artificial intelligence, especially when it comes to jobs and taxpayer-funded benefits. House Bill 1032, introduced by two Democratic lawmakers, would force state employers to disclose their AI use and keep humans in charge of decisions that affect people's livelihoods.
Organized labor is backing the measure, according to nbc4i.com, which reports the bill was introduced by Representatives Tristan Rader of Lakewood and Christine Cockley of Columbus. The legislation would require more transparency on the AI policies of state agencies and would restrict the technology's use in certain circumstances, the outlet notes. As of the report, the station adds, the state legislature has so far not passed any laws regulating the technology this year.
What the Bill Would Actually Require
Per Cockley, the bill would make state employers report how they're using AI, put in place safeguards to keep humans at the forefront of employment decisions, and restrict state agencies from using AI to make any decisions about the distribution of taxpayer-funded benefits. That last piece would specifically prohibit AI from deciding whether a person qualifies for benefits through Job and Family Services, per the same account. Cockley has also said a prior bill she worked on, dealing with AI chatbots and suicide, drew praise from Governor Mike DeWine but has never been brought to a vote.
Brian Pearson, a North Shore AFL-CIO representative, said workers often worry both about AI replacing them and about how employers are already deploying the technology behind the scenes. Whether it's being used for hiring, promotions, discipline, in many cases they don't know, he said. Pearson added that workers fear AI models or algorithms making life-altering employment decisions, and that such decisions should instead account for circumstances and compassion.
A Late Start in the Legislature
Thaddeus Claggett, a Republican representative from Licking County who chairs the House Technology and Innovation Committee, said it's unlikely that a bill introduced this late in the year will be able to pass before the end of the General Assembly. Claggett has said humans should make decisions for other humans, even as he acknowledged lawmakers find it difficult to predict all the potential effects of AI legislation and that regulating the technology will require continued work rather than a simple solution. He has also pushed back on arguments from Governor DeWine and President Donald Trump that AI regulation should largely be handled at the federal level.
Ohio isn't starting from zero on AI governance inside state government. The state already runs a multi-agency AI Council meant to provide statewide oversight for the use of generative AI solutions, according to the AI Council Charter. Under Ohio's Administrative Policy IT-17, any AI use case must be defined and routed through agency development teams, agency executive leadership and the AI Council, per the state's own guidance on the matter.
Ohio's Existing AI Use in Benefits Programs
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has already built a requirement for human verification of AI-generated output into its own AI strategy, according to StateTech Magazine. The agency rolled out four artificial-intelligence tools over the year leading up to late February, and it received the Merrill Baumgardner Award this year for incorporating AI into its unemployment services, as reported by Cleveland.com.
Ohio's debate is part of a much larger national wave. States considered 155 bills addressing AI in the workplace during this year's legislative session, with four themes standing out: transparency, accountability, worker privacy and workforce protection, according to multistate.us. Most of those proposals, the analysis notes, died in committee without advancing to either chamber.
How Other States Have Handled It
A handful of states have actually gotten AI workplace laws across the finish line. Colorado and Connecticut both enacted laws requiring employers to notify applicants when automated hiring tools are used and to explain adverse decisions, per the multistate.us analysis. Colorado's law goes a step further by granting applicants the right to request human review of an adverse decision involving a covered automated tool, while Connecticut's measure, SB 5, also requires employers to notify employees and applicants and gives them a chance to correct their data.
Not every effort has succeeded. California lawmakers sent a bill to the governor that would prohibit workplace surveillance tools capable of collecting neural data or recognizing emotional states, the same source reports. New York lawmakers passed a bill through both chambers that would have required large or publicly traded businesses to report annually on AI's effect on hiring, but it was not signed into law. Whether Ohio's own bill meets a similar fate, or stalls in committee as Claggett has suggested, remains to be seen.
