Andrzej BUŁA

Policy topics Andrzej BUŁA is active on

What Andrzej BUŁA has said (7)

• 2024-12-11 “E-002862/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal 1 aims to ensure the highest level of safety for children, including by strengthening the protection of children from the most harmful chemicals when playing with toys, and to enable the free circulation of toys in the EU. The overall impacts, including costs, administrative burden and environmental impacts, are set out in the impact assessment 2 , but costs and other impacts of transitional provisions were not individualised. The impact assessment estimates significant health benefits and avoided health damage for children 3 . The objective of Article 54 of the proposal is to ensure that children benefit from this protection in the swiftest manner, while allowing companies to adapt to the rules and exhaust stocks. Any remaining toy on the market after that period specified in Article 54 would be handled by economic operators in the distribution chain. The Commission notes that both the Council and the European Parliament propose longer periods in Article 54 and that this will be further discussed with the co-legislators. The proposal, like the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation 4 , requires a data carrier but not specifically the use of a quick-response (QR) code as the data carrier. The Commission is carrying out a security analysis on QR codes. Any measure appropriate to protect consumers from fraud through QR codes or other data carriers will be considered when the data carrier(s) will be specified in secondary legislation. 1 COM(2023)462. 2 SWD(2023)269. 3 The impact assessment estimated that banning the most harmful substances from toys would have considerable health benefits (between EUR 240 million and EUR 1.2 billion per year) in terms of avoided health damage from endocrine disruptors alone. These would accrue over the lifetime of a child exposed (or not exposed) to the harmful substances. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC.”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards · Product passport
• “Madam chair. Dear colleagues. First of all, I am very happy with the approach you have shown. We all see this as both a challenge and an opportunity and not a problem and a threat. This is how we should approach it. This is hope for a higher competitiveness, a higher people competences. But as members of this committee, we are aware of what is happening and that is why we need to continue to work on it. Another important aspect is us being able to distinguish in the discussion between what artificial intelligence automation is, um, robotic is, as well as algorithmic management and using algorithms to determine relations between people. If we talk about bots and ChatGPT, of course, this is also this is also essential. But here we are focusing on algorithmic management. I do agree with my colleagues that definitions need to be accurate. We need to start our work with common definitions and a common understanding. Obviously, legal acts that have already been adopted cannot exclude each other. We need to build further solutions, um, based on them. We have not taken account. And here I'm addressing the Patridge representative. We have not addressed all the aspects of, uh, I use, for example, um, recruitment HR. That is why I would like us to focus on the gist of the topic, and only focus on the workplace and on what happens in the workplace. Another thing that is going to be key is the balance between the expectations of workers and employers. Those two very important groups of EU citizens cannot become opponents. They need to be partners in our work. And this is another huge political role that we have to play. And what is most important, it is, um, humans that need to be right in the center of our work, and it is for them that we need to legislate. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “We must not ignore the risks, the pressure, the pressure of efficiency, um, excessive supervision and the risk of marginalisation. I would like my report to be a coherent vision of relations between employees and employers in a safe, transparent, and, um, predictable work environment. I would like to emphasize that I would really like European companies to be able to grow and to remain competitive. That is why I'm not challenging the right of entrepreneurs to opt for state of the art technologies. This report has also been developed with them in mind and keeping a dialogue open with all the parties of the process. This document is not aimed at adding additional layers of bureaucracy or reporting obligations. It needs to contribute to equal opportunities and the possibilities of growth for employees who are well motivated and have the right knowledge and qualifications. That is why, in my report, I suggest a set of specific elements. First of all, right to information. An employee must know that they are subject to an algorithm management system, what the objective is, what data is harvested and what decisions are taken or taken on that basis. Second of all, human supervision should always be a superior. The decisions that impact a basic aspects of employments, such as promotions, dismissals or bonuses, can only cannot be taken solely by automatic systems. Second of all, the duty to consult research clearly shows that engagement of employees in the process of implementing innovation positively affects their openness and motivation.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Fourthly, protection of personal data. We should set clear limits. What kind of data should never be collected or used? For example, data related to emotions, political views or um activities that people um undertake during their free time. I would also like to underline the need to provide financial support for entrepreneurs, for employees, as well as middle management, um, so that they understand how to use those, uh, tools adequately. That is why I think that the directive is the right instrument. Above all, because we are dealing with a horizontal problem which affects the whole of the single market. A lack of common rules, uh, constitutes a risk of fragmentation and an unlevel playing field. Um, a directive would set out a common minimum, which, in my opinion, is necessary today. At the same time, it allows us to maintain a certain level of flexibility and adaptable adaptability to national systems. Of course. Um, in the EU there are some regulations related to the topics. For example, we have the GDPR, we have the directive on the right of information and consultation with the employees, as well as the recently adopted AI act. These documents are important, but unfortunately they do not fully respond to all the challenges related to algorithm management in the workplace. The AI act mainly focuses on products not on employment relations.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. I will speak Polish. Madam chair. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for the possibility to present my draft report today on digitization, artificial intelligence and algorithm management in the workplace. This is a topic that truly impacts the day to day life of millions of employees, and decisions taken by the employers in the EU. It is more often, more and more often that it is not that direct superior, but an algorithm that determines who will be hired, who gets what kind of duties, how efficiency or performance is evaluated, or even who gets a bonus on or who gets fired. This process is very rapid and since the nature of work is changing, we also need to adjust the relations between the employees and employers to it. We need to take care of both parties to the contract. Providing legal transparency to entrepreneurs. Um. Transparent and equal rules. And the right information to the employees. Adequate training and protection. The very beginning. I would like to underline that the report that I'm presenting to you is not, um, a token of distrust towards technology. Quite the contrary. I do appreciate how responsible use of AI can increase a performance limit, monitors monotonous tasks, improve the security of work. Help us manage time better and as well as resources. But since technology can affect private and personal lives of people so deeply, we need to take care of transparency, balance and fundamental safeguards.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Gdpr does not refer to the situations in which automation directly impacts the relations between employees and employers, and, for example, those related to the right to consultations. That is why we need a complementary approach an accurate one, a comprehensive one that would be adjusted to the new Labour environment. Labour has already drafted the opinion and I'm very happy that the rapporteur, Miss Shares my opinion that a directive would be the right tool in this case. To conclude, I would also like to refer to the last hearing that took place in this committee two weeks ago. I could not attend it presently, but I followed it closely online. That hearing only convinced me that this is not an abstract problem. It is happening already here and now. Employees need to tackle decisions that are taken in a non-transparent way. Very often they are not even aware that they are subject to an algorithmic evaluation. In these conditions, we need to act not against technologies, but for the people that work with it. I am really hoping on your constructive cooperation above all political decisions. Decisions. I'm open to suggestions and discussions. It should be our common goal to draw up a framework that will be protecting people and at the same time supporting responsible innovation in the workplace. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to the debate.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(16:16:25 – 16:16:44): I will speak Polish. Colleagues, I will speak Polish. I would like to thank madam Dostalova for her opinion, for presenting all of the arguments. I do believe that we still can work on this text in manner, and I think that overall rejection of this proposal is not the best solution. I think that we, first of all, have to work more on the scope of this regulation. The proposed exclusion should not refer to producers from third countries. For them, the responsibilities should stay the same. Moreover, I think it would be worthwhile to verify whether or not the proposed exclusion should not be applied only to small enterprises and micro enterprises because big players have already worked out their own operational system. And I don't see any reasons why we should propose derogations to them. It's true that the European Commission has announced the revision on the package of the circular economy act. Not only the issue of extended responsibility of the producer, but other questions as well will be fully addressed there. We have to make sure that this is harmonized in line with this proposed act. So my amendments will go in that direction. I do believe that this is a more constructive approach, much more constructive than rejecting the draft, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. I hope for fruitful cooperation and a dialogue to work out solutions that will be balanced and good for our small enterprises.”
  Circular economy