New technology warning given

Press, 3 October 1979, Page 2

New technology warning given

PA Hamilton Industry in New Zealand will have little alternative to accepting new computer technology if it wishes to remain competitive in the [future, according to the Minl ister of Labour (Mr Bolger). Outlining the Government’s policy to . a meeting of the Waikato branch of the Computer Society, Mr Bolger gave clear warnings for trade unions in the future. Trade-union obstruction 'to| ' the introduction of modern equipment would prevent increases in productivity and New Zealand would become le.s competitive, he said. If modern technology was| necessary to remain com-: petitive to sell what was [ produced at a profit, “Then) we have no alternative but) to invest in modern tech-! nology,” Mr Bolger said. “If; . New Zealand’s industry is; I not competitive there will; I not be profits, and without; J profits, industry cannot pro- j , vide jobs. j "There will be steady and! ( continuing changes ’’in the) distribution of jobs and in , the types of skills required . as industry makes the neces- . sary adjustments,” Mr Bolger said. 1; He believed skilled work■jers were the trigger for pro- ’ Aiding jobs for the less skilled. This would mean a new approach to technical -[institutes and greater restraining in industry, much of J it done by employers. . Obstruction would result

i in New Zealand’s becoming) less competitive. I The Government had recently relaxed the barriers ■ those seeking to invest in i New Zealand had to cross. i “It is , regrettable that • some in the trade-union movement in New Zealand • see this move as some kind : of threat to exploit their ’ members,” Mr Bolger said. Mr Bolger’s comments on the introduction of micro- ■ processors revealed an element of wishful thinking, >[ said the chairman of the i Combined State Unions (Mr D. H. Thorp) yesterday. “Like the Minister, we ■ also are concerned about the ! potential for huge and ; | socially disruptive unemployment arising from the ;j unthinking introduction of) ijnew technology.” Mr Thorp ■said. “We would be more -[confident about the real ' nature of his concern if the ; I actions of the Government I [matched the Minister’s fine t sentiments. “There have been no discernible moves by the Govllernment as an employer to ■i co-opera t r with the State! i unions- about the effects of) 1 particular technological i ■ changes. "The pattern has been that we are usually informed ■ long after investment decisions have been made. “It is a question of sal- . ’ vaging what we can from i the mess rather than ratioI nallv evolving improvements to ensure that there is pror ductivity to be shared by all and to ’ avert unemployment by retraining and other t means,” Mr Thorp said.