Thesis
Growing automation in the workplace should not be feared as automation and technology promote a gradual, not sharp, decline in employment in current fields, which allows a spike in productivity, the birth of new career fields over time, and societal growth and benefit in general.
Citations

“Automation in the Workplace.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EGQZET067005876/OVIC?u=j079907008&sid=OVIC&xid=74cece7d. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.

The article “Automation in the Workplace,” a Gale Publication, serves to overview the topic of using the growing field of technology in place of human labor. The article covers technology as the driving force in the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” the history of automation starting from automobile manufacturing, new developments like chatbots, and the debate on whether or not these advancements are beneficial and/or labor policies need to be changed. Speaking to a bipartisan, scholarly audience, this article uses an objective and academic tone in order to serve vital information and testimonial support for both sides of the debate on whether automation is for the common worker.

Bates, Steve. “Changes in the Workforce Are a Direct Result of Automation.” Automation of Labor, edited by Rachel Bozek, 1st ed., Greenhaven Publishing, 2020, pp. 29-34.

In his article “Changes in the Workforce Are a Direct Result of Automation,” Steve Bates, a former writer and editor for the Society for Human Resource Management, argues that the changes in professional jobs are strongly driven by advancement in automation technology. He notes how employers are forcing automation into their businesses often to no avail and brings up that certain jobs have a higher chance to diminish than others as a result of automation. Speaking to an audience of poorer, more labor-intensive workers, Bates uses a scholarly and rational tone in hopes to inspire action against automation of labor to preserve human labor.

Hirsch, Jeffrey. “Worker-protection laws aren’t ready for an automated future.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/DDGJEH487743765/OVIC?u=j079907008&sid=OVIC&xid=20567fe8. Accessed 21 Feb. 2020. Originally published as “Worker-protection laws aren’t ready for an automated future,” The Conversation, 28 Aug. 2019.

In his article “Worker-protection laws aren’t ready for an automated future,” Jeffrey Hirsch, a professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, argues that worker protection laws in America should be modernized due to the growth of technology in use in the workforce. He notes that these developments mostly benefit the employers and compares American worker protection laws to European laws. Speaking to an audience of knowledgable, pro-technology laborers, Jeffrey Hirsch uses a passionate and critical tone to inspire workers to push for reform. 

Lehrer, Eli. “Automation Will Increase Productivity, Not Unemployment.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/DNDGAC325305348/OVIC?u=j079907008&sid=OVIC&xid=9cf1910f. Accessed 21 Feb. 2020. Originally published as “End the ‘robots are coming for your job’ panic,” Washington Examiner, 4 Sept. 2019.

 In his article “Automation Will Increase Productivity, Not Unemployment,” Eli Lehrer, president and co-founder of R Street Institute, argues that the fear of the effect of automation on employment rates in America is not needed. The author supports his claim by showing that the rise of productivity caused little change to unemployment from 2007 and that automation hasn’t caused mass unemployment since its introduction into labor. Speaking to poorer Americans who have jobs in these repetitive tasks and fear automation, Lehrer uses an informed but comforting tone in order to convince the audience that automation is beneficial for them and their field.

Paul, Mark. “Labor Opportunities Are Not Threatened by Automation.” Automation of Labor, edited by Rachel Bozek, 1st ed., Greenhaven Publishing, 2020, pp. 19–24.

In his article “Labor Opportunities Are Not Threatened by Automation,” Mark Paul, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, argues that automation of labor does not threaten employment for human workers. He points out that there might be temporary issues in transition, but notes that this is ultimately outweighed by the productivity it yields and he proposes changes to bridge the gap between modern labor’s productivity and heavily-automated production: he suggests to revise old laws and focus on developments and innovations in the workforce and to make education the prime center of focus. Paul wishes to focus on the possible better society that could arise in order to convince others to consider automation in the workforce. The author uses a scholarly and passionate tone to speak to informed, anti-technology conservatives.

“Views among US Adults Regarding the Impact of Automation on the Workforce, 2018.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/ESVEKQ894300730/OVIC?u=j079907008&sid=OVIC&xid=cd104d34. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.

The graphs from this source, published in the Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, visualize the stances that Americans take in reaction to the rise of automation in the workforce. According to the figure,  48% of all respondents feel that automation has hurt workers, while 22% said automation has helped laborers and 28% said automation had no effect on workers. 82% of the respondents believed that in 30 years, automated technology will most of what humans do today, but only 37% of respondents believed that this takeover of technology would affect jobs in their field. In this visualization, it is seen that the vast majority of Americans fear automation taking jobs, serving as statistical evidence against the use of automation in the workplace.