AI-replaced workers are being asked to return

SHL’s “AI rebounding” describes workers being asked to return after AI replaced them.[1] In the U.S., 19.1% of respondents said that sequence had happened to them; the combined figure for U.S. and U.K. respondents was 16%.[1] The answers also point to terms workers may want before returning: 51% wanted a substantial pay increase, 42% wanted written guarantees about future job security, and 40% wanted transparency about how AI would be used in their positions.[1] These are respondent-reported preferences, not stated employer policies.[1]

Among U.S. hiring managers whose organizations had eliminated positions because of AI, 32% said their organization later had to reinstate the same or similar roles.[1] Respondents cited several reasons: 40% said the jobs required institutional knowledge or context AI could not replace, 39% pointed to relationship management, and another 39% cited increased business demand.[1] A further 38% said the roles needed more human oversight and quality control than expected.[1]

Klarna began recruiting human customer service representatives after relying heavily on AI chatbots, and its CEO acknowledged that the company had gone too far in its reliance on automation.[1] A Klarna spokesperson told Fortune that human agents were needed for complex, sensitive cases; the company began directly hiring a small number of high-skilled people to identify where human involvement could add the most value.[1] Ford hired and promoted 350 experienced engineers in June after AI-powered quality-control tools failed to perform as expected.[1] The evidence also says AI contributed to quality improvements, while experienced engineers brought decades of design wisdom and were important to quality gains alongside the technology.[1]

Employers cited AI in 121,401 announced job cuts through October, a figure more than double the 54,836 announced layoff plans for all of 2025.[1] A separate measure found employment among workers aged 22 to 25 in occupations highly exposed to AI was 19% below where it would have been if it had grown at the pace of less-exposed peers.[1] In the survey, 24% of U.S. respondents aged 18 to 24 said AI replaced them and they were later asked to return, compared with 19.1% of U.S. respondents overall.[1] These figures describe different measures and should not be read as evidence that returning workers offset announced cuts.[1]