US dataswitch to UK
Pest Control Workers
recording work activities, spraying or dusting chemical solutions and driving truck equipped with power spraying equipment. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage is work software can't reach.
What shifts is recording work activities: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Apply or release chemical solutions or toxic gases and set traps to kill or remove pests and vermin that infest buildings and surrounding areas. The job title says “pest control workers”. The real job is the part underneath: inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But pest control workers is not one task. It is 13 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 12%
- changing shape
- 7%
- staying human
- 81%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 18 out of 100 (14–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 13 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for pest control workers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
1 taskTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Recording work activities
This is reading one thing and writing another: work activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Record work activities performed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 61 out of 100 (54–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Logging what was done, where and with what is record-keeping software captures automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Studying preliminary reports or diagrams of infested area and determining treatment type required to eliminate and preventing recurrence of infestation
The software now makes the first pass at preliminary reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study preliminary reports or diagrams of infested area and determine treatment type required to eliminate and prevent recurrence of infestation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reading reports and choosing a treatment is documented decision work, signed off by a licensed technician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
11 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Recommending treatment and prevention methods for pest problems to clients
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend treatment and prevention methods for pest problems to clients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Treatment guidance is well documented, but a licensed technician advises the customer face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage
This work happens in the physical world: premises, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage to property, wall, or roof porosity and access to infested locations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Finding where pests get in means crawling round the building and looking for yourself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Spraying or dusting chemical solutions
This work happens in the physical world: chemical solutions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Spray or dust chemical solutions, powders, or gases into rooms, onto clothing, furnishings, or wood, or over marshlands, ditches, or catch basins.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Spraying chemicals is hands-on work that a licensed applicator carries out in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Cleaning work site after completion of job
This work happens in the physical world: work site after completion of job, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Clean work site after completion of job.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cleaning up after a job is physical work at the property.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Driving truck equipped with power spraying equipment
This work happens in the physical world: truck, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Drive truck equipped with power spraying equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Driving a spray truck is physical work behind the wheel.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing or assisting other workers
This work happens in the physical world: other workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct, or assist other workers in, treatment or extermination processes to eliminate or control rodents, insects, or weeds.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Directing and helping with treatment happens at the property with the chemicals in hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring area dimensions requiring treatment
This work happens in the physical world: area dimensions requiring treatment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Measure area dimensions requiring treatment, calculate fumigant requirements, and estimate cost for service.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The calculations and pricing are straightforward, but measuring the space means being on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Setting mechanical traps or placing poisonous paste or bait in sewers, burrows or ditches
This work happens in the physical world: mechanical traps, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Set mechanical traps, or place poisonous paste or bait in sewers, burrows, or ditches.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting traps and placing bait in drains and burrows is hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 3 tasks
Posting warning signs and lock building doors to secure area
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: signs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Post warning signs and lock building doors to secure area to be fumigated.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Putting up signs and locking doors before fumigation is physical work at the building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Cutting or boring openings in building or surrounding concrete
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: openings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Cut or bore openings in building or surrounding concrete, access infested areas, insert nozzle, and inject pesticide to impregnate ground.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cutting into a building and injecting pesticide is physical work with tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cleaning and removing blockages from infested areas to facilitate spraying procedures and provide drainage
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blockages, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Clean and remove blockages from infested areas to facilitate spraying procedures and provide drainage, using brooms, mops, shovels, or rakes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Clearing blockages with brooms and shovels is manual work on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $45,250a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 102,620in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: work activities in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: recording work activities and studying preliminary reports or diagrams of infested area and determining treatment type required to eliminate and preventing recurrence of infestation. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where premises gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 12% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 81% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 13 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Recording work activities is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to work activities, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether premises is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near studying preliminary reports or diagrams of infested area and determining treatment type required to eliminate and preventing recurrence of infestation. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to pest control workers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was sound engineering technicians: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 18/100 here, with only 12% of the task list in the top band, and “recommend treatment and prevention methods for pest problems to clients” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Sound Engineering Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already record work activities performed, and their equivalent is to prepare for recording sessions by performing such activities as selecting and setting up…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 13,080 of those jobs against 102,620 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 13% as many seats.
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already recommend treatment and prevention methods for pest problems to clients, and their equivalent is to identify diseases or pests affecting landscaping and order appropriate treatments. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Physical Therapist Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the overall shape of the two task lists, but nothing in your day matched a specific piece of theirs closely enough to name.
Why I am not recommending it: The two task lists look alike from a distance and share almost nothing close up: no single piece of their work matched a piece of yours. That is a resemblance, not a route.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 12% of its task weight, across 13 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like inspecting premises to identify infestation source and extent of damage arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The nearest United Kingdom equivalent is Pest controllers. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →close match
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for pest control workers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 12% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for pest control workers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for pest control workers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Pest Control Workers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 13 official task statements scored for Pest Control Workers (United States, SOC 37-2021), 12% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 18 out of 100 (range 14–24, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Pest Control Workers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Record work activities performed” (61/100, high); “Study preliminary reports or diagrams of infested area and determine treatment type required to eliminate and prevent recurrence of infestation” (56/100, partial); “Measure area dimensions requiring treatment, calculate fumigant requirements, and estimate cost for service” (33/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Pest Control Workers” stay human?
- About 81% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Clean and remove blockages from infested areas to facilitate spraying procedures and provide drainage, using brooms, mops, shovels, or rakes” (0/100, minimal); “Set mechanical traps, or place poisonous paste or bait in sewers, burrows, or ditches” (0/100, minimal); “Cut or bore openings in building or surrounding concrete, access infested areas, insert nozzle, and inject pesticide to impregnate ground” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Pest Control Workers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 12% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 81% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Pest Control Workers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 13 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.