Cynthia Phinney is the president of the Maine AFL-CIO and a member of IBEW 1837.

Maine’s tradition of protecting workers runs deep. A tradition shaped by leaders like Frances Perkins, who helped build the modern American labor system in response to industrial changes, and carried forward through generations of Mainers. From the establishment of the Bureau of Industrial and Labor Statistics in the 1880s that tracked worker conditions, to more modern whistleblower protections that protect workers who speak out about harmful conditions, Maine has long recognized that when jobs change, safeguards must evolve with them.

That principle is now being tested.

Artificial intelligence is starting to reshape industries across America, including here in Maine. From shipbuilding and logistics to healthcare and agriculture, AI is changing how decisions are made and how jobs evolve.

As these changes spread across our state’s industries, Congress is considering a proposal that would block states like Maine from passing their own protections around AI.

Politicians in support of this approach argue that a single national standard would create consistency for the tech industry. But in practice, these proposals would strip states across the country of the right to respond to the real-world impacts of AI in their own communities. 

Maine is a state where industries are strongly shaped by local conditions, and where policies have long been tailored to reflect those realities. Take Maine’s ports as one example. As AI tools are introduced into logistics and shipping, they will inevitably shape how workers are scheduled, how cargo is managed and how leadership decisions are made. In practice, it will mean that systems optimized for speed and cost will be able to override the judgment of experienced workers — many who have dedicated their entire careers to understanding safety risks and improving safety measures in ways data alone cannot do. 

On the waterfront, on a farm, or in a factory, conditions can change quickly, and decisions about safety often rely on context, communication and instinct. When those decisions are handed off to automated systems, that human judgment can be harder to apply in the moments it matters most.

We are already seeing how workers are being affected by AI. According to one recent study that looked at the impact of AI on employees, with the introduction of AI, teams reported their workload increasing. Another report examining AI in the office found that the introduction of AI caused a widening in scope of work for employees, more work hours and a work environment where multiple tasks must be completed at once.

Over time, these kinds of changes can erode both job quality and job security. When decisions are automated, it becomes easier to reduce staffing, deskill certain roles or sideline workers’ judgment altogether. These changes rarely happen all at once. Instead, they show up gradually: fewer workers on a shift, more reliance on automated systems and less room for human discretion. Over time, that can fundamentally change what these jobs look like and who is able to do them. 

That’s why states need the ability to act.

A federal policy that preempts state-level AI protections would override Maine’s ability to respond to these changes in a way that reflects the needs of our workforce and our economy. It would replace local judgment with a one-size-fits-all approach, crafted far from the communities it affects. 

If Congress is serious about supporting workers and communities through this labor transition, it should not silence the states that are trying to get this right. It should preserve the ability for states like Maine to lead and protect our workers as new technologies shape the economy of tomorrow. 

Maine’s members of Congress should reject any effort that blocks states from setting their own AI guardrails. Let Mainers do what we’ve always done: look out for our workers, respond to our local realities and ensure that technological advances benefit the people who live and work here. 

AI may be national in scope, but its impacts are local. Maine should have the right to respond accordingly.