So all a company has to do is say "AI is necessary for the job" and the exemption no longer applies. Then why are we even having this discussion?
Because if neither side budges, it goes to court to figure out what's reasonable, like with any other dispute. This is pretty basic stuff.
How would you possibly prove that AI is necessary for a job when someone has been doing the job successfully for years before AI?
Sounds like a tough argument to make to me
loading story #50279313
loading story #50278591