SHL surveyed 2,036 workers in the U.S. and U.K.: 19% of the Americans report firsthand experience of being replaced by AI and then asked to return. Among workers willing to go back, 51% want a substantial raise and 42% want job security in writing. Separately, Sarah Hunter of the Reserve Bank of Australia told a UBS conference in Sydney that the evidence for AI lifting productivity or causing widespread job losses remains limited, though job postings and employment among younger workers in exposed occupations show early adjustment.
By the Numbers
Among U.S. respondents, 19% report firsthand experience of AI rebounding, against 13% in the U.K., and 24% of workers ages 18 to 24 have experienced it (SHL)
Among workers willing to return, 51% want a substantial pay increase, 42% want job-security guarantees, and 40% want transparency about AI in their role (SHL)
54% of workers say their employer favors external hiring over reskilling or promoting internal talent, while 47% would rather retrain for a different role than lose their job (SHL)
4.85%: the Reserve Bank of Australia’s rate after five increases this year, an 18-year high, with an AI-related data centre boom adding to demand pressure (Reuters)
Layoffs and Company Decisions
Workers replaced by AI are being asked back, and they want a raise and a guarantee
SHL, a talent assessment company, commissioned Propeller Insights to survey 2,036 employed adults in June and July 2026, 1,029 in the U.S. and 1,007 in the U.K. SHL calls the pattern AI rebounding: a company automates a role, then asks the person back. About 19% of the Americans and 13% of the Britons report firsthand experience, and 24% of workers ages 18 to 24 have experienced it. Among workers willing to return, 51% want a substantial pay increase and 42% want job-security guarantees, and 40% want transparency on how AI will be used in their role. Another 8% would refuse to return under any circumstances. In the same survey, 54% say their employer favors external hiring over reskilling or promoting from within, and 47% would rather retrain for a different role than lose their job. SHL sells workforce assessment products, and its argument is that employers lack a reliable gauge of what their people can do, so weigh the findings with that interest in view. Lucy Beaumont, SHL’s global SVP of product and design, said: “Most organizations don’t have a reliable, objective gauge on what their workforce can do.”
Fortune, Joshua Hong, November 9, 2026. Read the report SHL published the survey release October 29, 2026, 11 days earlier. Read the release
Why it matters: A role cut before anyone measured what the person in it did can cost money twice, at the exit and again at the return offer. Workers who come back are setting terms, with 51% asking for a raise and 42% asking for job security in writing. Before approving the next AI-driven cut, HR leaders can ask what bringing that person back would cost.
Policy and Government
Reserve Bank of Australia official sees limited evidence of AI productivity gains or widespread job losses
Sarah Hunter, Assistant Governor at the Reserve Bank of Australia, told a UBS conference in Sydney that there is limited evidence AI has materially lifted productivity or caused widespread job losses. She pointed to tentative signs of adjustment in weaker job ad postings and weaker employment outcomes in more AI-exposed occupations, with stronger growth where the technology has had less impact, particularly for younger workers. Hunter described AI investment as adding to price pressure for now: a boom in data centre construction is lifting demand in a supply-constrained economy, and the RBA has raised rates five times this year, to 4.85%, an 18-year high. She warned that asset prices could face a sharp, disorderly repricing if returns on AI investment fall short of expectations.
Reuters, November 9, 2026 (Sydney dateline; first posted November 8). Read the report
Why it matters: A central bank reading the labor data finds limited evidence of widespread losses, with adjustment showing first in postings and in younger workers in exposed occupations. HR leaders can compare their own entry-level requisitions in AI-exposed roles against that pattern before the 2027 plan is final.
What Workforce Leaders Are Watching
Does the business case for your next AI-driven role cut include the price of bringing the person back, given that 51% of returning workers in SHL’s survey want a substantial raise?
Which roles slated for AI replacement have a named internal retraining path, when 47% of workers say they’d rather retrain than lose their job and 54% say their employer favors external hires?
What do your entry-level requisitions in AI-exposed roles show for this year against last, now that the Reserve Bank of Australia sees early adjustment among younger workers?
This briefing was prepared automatically by the Workforce Rewired research assistant. All stories include direct source links.