A specific type of institutional optimism can be found in the term “blue-ribbon commission.” It indicates that someone in a position of authority has identified an issue, called a serious meeting, and set a deadline for results. It’s another matter entirely whether outcomes truly follow. This June, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the FutureWorks Commission, which she appointed Alexander Colvin, dean of Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, to spearhead. It’s a sensible decision. It’s also a really challenging job.
Colvin, who has dedicated his professional life to researching labor disputes, conflict resolution, and the mechanics of power negotiations between employers and employees, is now in a room with 19 other people attempting to address one of the more complex economic questions of the decade: what happens to workers when AI begins to perform tasks that workers once performed? Molly Kinder from the Brookings Institution, Thasunda Brown Duckett, the CEO of TIAA, and former U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez are all on the commission. It’s a credible group on paper.
Colvin is cautious but not evasive in his framing. He has likened the AI era to the industrial revolution—the transition from farm to factory—implying that jobs change rather than necessarily disappear. It’s a measured approach that is likely to be accurate in the long run. The more difficult aspect, which he appears to comprehend, is that rent is not paid in the long run. Employees in industries that are currently undergoing disruption cannot afford to wait for structural equilibrium to shift in their favor.
The ILR School at Cornell is truly well-suited for this type of work. Researchers at the school are looking at how labor laws apply, where AI is being used, and how companies are adjusting. It’s not window dressing. There is actual institutional knowledge there, and it’s the kind of grounded empirical viewpoint that commissions occasionally lack—committees that wind up with a lot of executive opinion and little worker-level data. It is important to have someone who actually reads the research rather than just summarizes it.
Holding two things at once is worthwhile, though. The FutureWorks Commission will meet for the first time in late July and present recommendations by the end of the year. That is a condensed timeline for a complex issue. There is a perception that the application of AI in workplaces—including logistics, healthcare administration, customer service, and legal research—is happening far more quickly than any commission can realistically monitor, let alone influence. Reports contain recommendations. Reports are submitted. If policies are implemented, they will be implemented later.
Whether the commission produces something specific and enforceable, as opposed to something broadly aspirational, may actually matter. New York has the ability to enact legislation pertaining to labor protections; it has done so in the past with laws pertaining to scheduling transparency and gig worker regulations. Instead of making broad claims about the significance of adaptation, the question is whether this group can identify interventions that are specific enough to be helpful, such as retraining pipelines, algorithmic accountability standards, and income support structures.
Hochul referred to getting ready for AI as “the defining challenge of our time,” which is a statement that is both accurate and potentially crippling. Colvin seems less overpowered by it. He appears to tackle the issue in the manner of a labor scholar: identify the real point of friction, determine who has leverage, and proceed from there. It remains to be seen if a commission, no matter how well-equipped with knowledge, can convert that strategy into long-lasting policy for millions of workers. However, at least someone with the appropriate background is posing the question.
