The job of the future? Flexible, digital, and with legal pitfalls we don’t yet address today

The future of work started yesterday

Just a few years ago, “modern employment” meant the ability to work from home once a week or a company laptop. Today, the reality has moved on. Thousands of employees communicate with their boss via chat apps, share tasks in the cloud, and debug emails or analytics with artificial intelligence. And in another decade, the change will be even more dramatic.

It is estimated that over 350,000 jobs will be lost in the Czech Republic, while nearly a million new ones will be created. It sounds like a positive balance – but it all depends on how we respond to these changes. Not only as individuals or companies, but also as the state and legislators.

Technology is changing the market – the laws need to catch up

Generative artificial intelligence, digital tools and automation are pushing the boundaries of what is even considered “human work”. A chatbot can answer customer queries, AI can create contract proposals or analyse hundreds of pages in minutes.

Positions that were “safe” not long ago – such as administrative workers, legal assistants or accountants – are suddenly in jeopardy. At the same time, new skills are in demand: strategic thinking, creativity or working with data.

But this change is not just technological. It is a legal, organisational and cultural change. When an employer wants to retrain an employee for a different role, it can’t be done just by talking. From a legal perspective, it means changing the type of work – and therefore amending the contract, or simply signing a new contract.

Employers and employees thus need greater legal flexibility to respond to dynamic developments without being threatened by lengthy procedures or legal uncertainty.

Employment contracts in the digital age: flexibility and speed

The classic employment contract, where the type of work, place of work and working hours are fixed, will soon be an outdated model.

By 2035, the number of people combining multiple part-time jobs, changing their job role during the year or working from different locations will grow. Companies will need to flexibly change the scope of tasks, engage employees in retraining and respond to market developments. But the current Labour Code does not allow for this pace.

What will be needed?

• “Live” contracts that allow for quick adjustments (e.g. in the form of digitally signed amendments).
• Clear rules on what the employer can change unilaterally – and when the employee’s consent is required.
• Modernisation of VVT and VPA, which are now often used inflexibly and without greater protection for employees.

In the future, a balance will have to be struck between protection for the employee and efficiency for the employer.

Home office, OSH and the new occupational safety regime

Working from home is no longer a fad in modern companies. It has become the norm for many professions – and is expected to grow even more in the future. But what does this mean in terms of employment law?

The issue of workplace safety is fundamental.

• Who is liable for an accident that happens in the kitchen during working hours?
• How does an employer prove that it has created a “safe work environment” when it does not even physically enter it?
• Can OHS training be valid if an employee joins once from the cafeteria and a second time from the cottage?

While the Labour Code allows home office contractual arrangements, most companies use outdated templates that do not address practical risks at all. And this is what can backfire – for example, in the event of an accident at work, where not only hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses are at risk, but also an inspection from the labour inspectorate.

It should be normal in the future:

• modify the rules for remote working in contracts,
• specify responsibilities and requirements for a safe environment,
• provide online OSH training with confirmation of completion.

Artificial intelligence in HR: recruitment, assessment, accountability

An HR professional who never sleeps, never goes to lunch and has no biases? Sounds like a dream. But it is artificial intelligence in HR that brings not only efficiencies but also many new legal issues.

Companies are already testing AI tools to help select suitable candidates, analyse CVs or track employee performance. In some cases, they’re even deciding who makes it to the next round of interviews – and who doesn’t. But what if the algorithm “gets it wrong”?

Who is responsible for the AI’s decision?

Imagine if the AI rejects you because of an incorrectly evaluated resume. Or a company cuts your pay because of an algorithm error. Who’s responsible? The programmer? The company? Or the AI itself?

Legally, the employer is liable, even if the machine made the decision. But these mediated decisions are often opaque and non-transparent. The applicant or employee is often unaware that his or her assessment was made without human intervention.

With the rise of AI in HR comes the need for a new legal discipline – AI compliance. It’s not just about data protection, but about the overall fairness, transparency and auditability of algorithmic decisions.

Companies will have to:

• clearly declare what role AI plays in decision making (e.g. in recruitment),
• ensure that AI systems do not lead to discrimination (e.g. disadvantage of women, older candidates, etc.),
• have processes in place for human review of AI decisions.

For example, under AI Act, the new EU AI regulation, some tools used in HR will be considered high risk systems – and subject to strict regulation.

What could be the problem in practice?

• Invisible biases: AI can copy stereotypes it has learned from historical data. If a male candidate has been more successful in the past, the system may unintentionally disadvantage women.
• Data errors: the algorithm will evaluate an experienced candidate as unsuitable because their CV doesn’t fit the template.
• Employees under pressure: AI monitors performance and “suggests” pay cuts. But who decides what is good performance? And what effect does it have on mental health?

What can companies do about it today?

• Transparently communicate the use of AI in work processes.
• Revise internal regulations and employment contracts to consider the role of AI tools.
• Introduce a process for human review of AI decisions – for example, the ability to appeal rejections in a selection process.
• Regularly assess whether AI is creating systematic inequalities or discrimination.

An employer who chooses to use AI tools in HR should understand that this is not just a technological innovation. It is a game changer that affects human rights, working relationships and employee trust. And it is the legal framework that can determine whether AI will be a help – or a legal risk.

New forms of work and the right to disconnect: when work knows no boundaries

You work from a café in Lisbon, open your laptop on the couch in the evening and finish a job for a client from another continent during the weekend. No, that’s not a picture of the future – it’s the reality for a growing number of people.

Gig economy, freelancing and digital nomadism are becoming common ways of making a living. The younger generation is no longer looking for “temp work” but rather meaningful projects, flexible terms and the ability to balance work and life. But the legal framework is often not enough. And there is an added problem: the work never ends.

From a legal perspective, there is a fundamental difference between dependent work (employee) and independent activity(self-employed, freelancer). An employee is entitled to holidays, sick leave, insurance contributions and strong protection under the Labour Code. A freelancer handles everything himself – and also bears more risk.

The problem arises, however, when a company hires a person as a “self-employed” but effectively requires him to work as an employee – at specific hours, in a specific location, under the direct supervision of a supervisor. In such a case, we are talking about a shvarcsystem, which is illegal.

Practical example: Uber and the legal battles over the status of drivers

The topic of employee status has been addressed by courts around the world. In both France and California, it has been ruled that Uber drivers are not entrepreneurs but employees – because they cannot influence the price, are subject to evaluation and have no real freedom as entrepreneurs.

Such decisions have a huge impact not only on the level of levies, but also on the rights of these workers – for example, the right to minimum wage, holiday pay or accident compensation.

When work has no end: the right to disconnect

With the advent of the home office, mobile apps and online collaboration, the line between work and leisure has blurred. Emails in the evening, messages at the weekend, calls to Teams and during holidays – for many people, work becomes a stream that never stops flowing.

That’s why the concept of the right todisconnect is being developed to guarantee employees the right not to be constantly available. They already have it, for example:

• France (as of 2017 – companies over 50 employees must have an internal disconnect policy),
• Belgium, Ireland and other European countries.

Employees thus have the right to refuse to answer emails outside working hours, without the risk of penalty or disadvantage.

In the Czech Republic, the situation is still less clear. But whether they are freelancers, platform workers or employees working from a beach in the Canaries, they have one thing in common: they need clear rules of the game. The law should be able to recognise modern forms of work, offer them a legal framework, and protect those who fall into a grey area without security. It is equally important to set limits on working hours and give people the opportunity to take a real break from work.