|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Executive Summary
TECHNOLOGY AND AMERICAN ECONOMIC WELFARE
Technological change transforms the production of goods and services
and improves the efficiency of production processes. It also allows the
production of entirely new goods and services. Since the beginnings of
American industrialization, such change has been a central component of
U.S. economic growth, growth that has been characterized by the
creation of new industries and the transformation of older ones as a result
of innovations in products and processes. Technological advance has also
played an increasingly important role in the growth of income per person
during the past 100 years; its contribution to that area and to economic
growth is likely to increase still further as the United States becomes
more closely linked to the global economy.
The use of new technologies in production processes frequently re-
duces the labor and other resources needed to produce a unit of output;
these reductions in turn lower the costs of production and the employ-
ment requirements for a fixed output level. If reductions in the demand for
labor were the only effect of technological change on employment,
policymakers addressing the problem of maintaining U.S. economic
welfare would only have to balance the contributions of technological
change against the costs of higher unemployment.
However, technological change has other important effects that histor-
ically have enabled society to achieve greater prosperity without sacri-
ficing employment. By reducing the costs of production and thereby
OCR for page 2
2 TECHNOLOG Y AND EMPLO YMENT
lowering the price of a particular good in a competitive market, technological
change frequently leads to increases in output demand; greater output
demand results in increased production, which requires more labor, odset-
ting the employment impacts of reductions in labor requirements per unit of
output stemming from technological change. Even if the demand for a good
whose production process has been transformed does not increase signifi-
cantly when its price is lowered, benefits still accrue because consumers can
use the savings from these price reductions to purchase other goods and
services. In the aggregate, therefore, employment often expands. Moreover,
when technological change results in the development and production of
entirely new products, employment grows in the industries producing these
new goods. Historically and, we believe, for the foreseeable future, reduc-
tions in labor requirements per unit of output resulting from new process
technologies have been and will continue to be outweighed by the beneficial
employment effects of the expansion in total output that generally occurs.
Indeed, the new realities of the U.S. economy of the 1980s and 1990s will
make rapid development and adoption of new technologies imperative to
achieving growth in U.S. employment and wages.
One crucial new reality of the U.S. economy of the 1980sis that it is
more "open" to international trade than was the American economy of
the 1950s and 1960s. The increased importance of trade means that higher
productivity growth, which is supported by technological change, is
essential to the maintenance of higher real earnings and the preservation
of U.S. jobs. Moreover, the more rapid rates of international technology
transfer characteristic of the modern economic environment mean that
the knowledge forming the basis for commercial innovations need not be
domestic in origin, just as U.S. basic research has underpinned the
technological advances of firms in other nations.
The relative rates of development and adoption by U.S. and foreign
industries of new process technologies affect the rates of growth in labor
productivity (output per worker) in those industries and therefore can
produce differences in labor costs among U.S. and foreign firms. To the
extent that foreign firms develop and adopt new technologies faster than
U.S. firms, the production costs of foreign producers will fall more
rapidly. Barring shifts in U.S. and foreign currency exchange rates,
declines in the wages of U.S. workers, or comparable technological
advances by U.S. firms, these reductions in foreign producers' costs will
decrease markets for U.S. firms and ultimately reduce jobs for American
workers within the affected industries. To remain competitive in the
absence of technological change and labor productivity growth in these
industries, U.S. labor costs, relative to those of foreign producers, must
be lowered, either by direct reductions in wages or through government
policies that support devaluation of the dollar. Either of these methods
OCR for page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
decreases U.S. workers' incomes relative to those of foreign workers.
Thus, if U.S. firms fall behind foreign firms in developing and adopting
new technologies, the alternatives are not attractive-U.S. workers must
accept fewer jobs or lower earnings.
Yet, if U.S. firms consistently develop and adopt new technologies
more rapidly than foreign producers, the picture is quite different. The
resultant higher productivity growth in U.S. industries will support
reductions in production costs, which will enable U.S. workers to retain
higher-wage jobs. Because new knowledge and technologies developed in
the United States now are transferred to foreign competitors more rapidly
than they were in the past, however, any technology-based advantages
held by U.S. firms and workers over foreign firms and workers are likely
to be more fleeting in the future. A key factor in sustaining American
living standards and employment thus is continued public and private
investment in the generation of new knowledge_ Of equal importance,
however, is the need for U.S. firms to advance from fundamental
knowledge to commercial innovations more rapidly than in the past.
We have defined our task in this study as that of analyzing the
contribution of technological change to employment and unemployment.
Because technological change plays a limited role in determining total
employment, its impacts in this area are primarily sectoral in nature, and
those impacts are affected only indirectly by aggregate economic condi-
tions. We therefore regard the design of macroeconomic policies aimed at
achieving high levels of aggregate demand and employment as outside this
panel's charge. Despite the increased importance of international trade
for this economy and the role of technological change within it, a discussion
of trade policies also would have taken this panel far beyond its charge; trade
policy therefore was not considered in detail by the panel.
Our principal finding may be succinctly stated:
Technological change is an essential component of a dynamic, expanding
economy. Recent and prospective levels of technological change will not
produce significant increases in total unemployment, although individu-
als willface painful and costly adjustments. The modern U.S. economy,
in which international trade plays an increasingly important role, must
generate and adopt advanced technologies rapidly in both the manufac-
turing and nonmanufacturing sectors if growth in U.S. employment and
wages is to be maintained. Rather than producing mass unemployment,
technological change will make its maximum contribution to higher living
standards, wages, and employment levels if appropriate public and
private policies are adopted to support the adjustment to new technolo
g~es.
Technological change often involves difficult adjustments for firms and
OCR for page 4
4 TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYMENT
individuals. Workers must develop new skills and may be required to seek
employment in different industries or locations. In many cases, workers
suffer severe financial losses as a result of permanent layoffs or plant
closings. Managers also face serious challenges in evaluating and adopt-
ing new manufacturing and office technologies in an increasingly compet-
itive global economy.
Given these realities, we recommend policies to help workers adjust to
technological change. Our recommendations propose initiatives to aid
displaced workers through job search assistance, basic skills training,
training in new job-related skills, and advance notice of plant shutdowns
and large-scale permanent layoffs. Through these initiatives we focus on
the need to assist individuals who experience hardship as a result of
technological change and to aid them in securing new employment. We
also offer recommendations that call on U.S. firms to develop and adopt
new technologies more rapidly and suggest policies both public and
private that might encourage them to do so.
The technological revitalization of American industry that is the goal
of these recommendations is essential to the national welfare. The
alternative to rapid rates of technological change is stagnation in U.S.
wages and employment. In the end, no trade-off need be made between
the goals of high levels of employment and rapid technological change.
Policies that help workers and managers adjust to technological change
can aid and encourage the adoption of productivity-enhancing technol-
ogies.
Technological change poses significant challenges to government
policymakers, business, and labor, as well as to individual workers.
Although the United States remains a technological and economic
leader, the performance of this economy in adopting new technologies,
achieving higher levels of productivity, and dealing with the adjustment
of workers to new technologies leaves a great deal to be desired. If
business, labor, and government fail to develop appropriate adjustment
policies, the eventual price may be reduced technological dynamism and
a decline in the international competitiveness of the U.S. economic
system.
CENTRAL FINDINGS
In addition to the principal finding already stated, the central findings
of this panel cover a number of dimensions of the employment impacts
of technological change and form the basis for our policy recommenda-
tions, summarized below and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10 of
our full report. The complete set of findings for this study is compiled in
Chapter 9.
OCR for page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Employment and Wage Impacts of Technological
Change in an Open Economy
· Historically, technological change and productivity growth have
been associated with expanding rather than contracting total employ-
ment and rising earnings. The future will see little change in this pattern.
As in the past, however, there will be declines in specific industries and
growth in others, and some individuals will be displaced. Technological
change in the U.S. economy is not the sole or even the most important
cause of these dislocations (see Chapters 2 and 3~.
· The adoption of new technologies generally is gradual rather than
sudden. The employment impacts of new technologies are realized through
the diffusion and adoption of technology, which typically take a considerable
amount of time. The employment impacts of new technologies therefore are
likely to be felt more gradually than the employment impacts of other factors,
such as changes in exchange rates. The gradual pace of technological change
should simplify somewhat the development and implementation of adjust-
ment policies to help affected workers (see Chapter 21.
· Within today's international economic environment, slow adoption
by U.S. firms (relative to other industrial nationsJ of productivity-
increasing technologies is likely to cause more job displacement than the
rapid adoption of such technologies. Much of the job displacement of the
past 7 years does not reflect a sudden increase in the adoption of
laborsaving innovations but instead is due in part to increased U.S.
imports and sluggish exports, which in turn reflect macroeconomic forces
(the large U.S. budget deficit and the high foreign exchange value of the
dollar during 1980-1985), slow adoption of some technologies in U.S.
manufacturing, and other factors (see Chapters 2 and 31.
· The rate of technology transfer across national boundaries has grown;
for the United States, this transfer increasingly incorporates significant
inflows of technology from foreign sources, as well as outflows of U.S.
researchindings and innovations. In many technologies, the United States
no longer commands a significant lead over industrial competitor nations.
Moreover, technology "gaps" (the time it takes another country to become
competitive with U.S. industry or for U.S. firms to absorb foreign technol-
ogies) are likely to be shorter in the future (see Chapter 34.
Technology and the Characteristics
of Tomorrow's Jobs
· New technologies by themselves are not likely to change the level of
job-related skills required for the labor force as a whole. We do not
project a uniform upgrading or downgrading of job skill requirements in the
OCR for page 6
6 TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYMENT
U.S. economy as a result of technological change. This does not deny the
need, however, for continued investment and improvement in the job-related
skills of the U.S. work force to support the rapid adoption of new technol-
ogies that will contribute to U.S. competitiveness (see Chapter 41.
· Technological change will not limit employment opportunities for
individuals entering the labor force with strong basic skills. The most
reliable projections of future job growth suggest that the number of jobs
in the broad occupational categories accounting for the majority of
entrant employment will continue to expand. Combined with a projected
lower rate of growth in the entrant pool, this conclusion suggests that
labor force entrants with strong basic skills (numerical reasoning, prob-
lem solving, literacy, and written communication) will fare well in the job
markets of the future (see Chapter 51.
Technology and Work Force Adjustment
· A substantial portion from 20 to 30 percent of displaced workers
lack basic skills. These workers often remain unemployed longer and
have difficulty finding new jobs without incurring significant wage reduc-
tions. In view of the fact that technological and structural change in this
economy will place increasing demands on the ability of workers to
adjust, experienced workers who lack basic skills will face even greater
difficulties in future job markets (see Chapter 31.
· The evidence suggests that displaced workers who receive substan-
tial advance notice of permanent job loss experience shorter periods of
unemployment than workers who do not receive such notice. Substantial
advance notice (several months) of permanent layoffs or plant shutdowns
appears to reduce the severity of worker displacement. Moreover, such a
policy can improve the effectiveness of job search assistance, counseling,
and retraining programs, thereby reducing the public costs of unemploy-
ment (see Chapter 71.
· The primary federal program for displaced workers, Title III of the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPAJ, emphasizes the rapid placement of work-
ers in new jobs. It does not appear to serve the needs of many displaced
workers. JTPA provides little training for the substantial number of displaced
workers who need better basic skills; it also provides little extended training
in job-related skills for other workers (see Chapter 71.
· Displaced worker adjustment assistance programs reduce the dura-
tion of unemployment after displacement and result in higher wages in
new jobs obtained immediately after participation in such programs.
There is limited evidence on the specific contribution of retraining in basic
and job-related skills (a component of many such programs) to the
employment and earnings prospects of displaced workers. Nevertheless,
OCR for page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
it would be wrong to conclude from this that retraining is ineffective or
that it has a negative impact on earnings or reemployment prospects. Too
little is known about the components of effective adjustment programs for
displaced worker populations with different characteristics because of the
paucity of rigorous evaluations of such programs. Additional policy
experiments and evaluations are badly needed to improve these programs
(see Chapters 7 and 81.
POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our policy options and recommendations are based on the conclusion
that, with an appropriate policy structure, technological change can support
growth in U.S. employment and living standards. Toward that end, we have
developed options and recommendations for the public and private sectors
that emphasize three broad initiatives in public and private sector policies:
(1) public policies to aid worker adjustment to technological change; (2)
public policies to support the development and application of advanced
technologies; and (3) improvements in labor-management cooperation in the
adoption of new technologies, as well as improvements in private managers'
expertise in evaluating and implementing new technologies.
Although the overall U.S. standard of living and average real (inflation-
adjusted) wages generally increase as a result of technological change,
individuals suffer losses. Many of our public policy recommendations
stem from the belief that a portion of the affluence created by technolog-
ical change should be used to assist those suffering losses as a result of it.
In addition, public policies that deal with the equitable distribution of
gains and losses from technological change can facilitate such change by
reducing the resistance of potential losers to new technologies in the
workplace. Just as management policies to support adoption of new
technologies within the firm must address worker concerns about adjust-
ment and employment security (see Chapter 7 of our full report), public
policies that aid adjustment can reduce potential resistance to new
technologies and support their more rapid adoption. On balance, if
policies are developed that will ease the burden of adjustment for those
individuals faced with job loss and thereby facilitate the adoption of new
technologies, all members of our society can benefit.
Recommendations for the Public Sector
POEICIES FOR WORKER ADJUSTMENT
Our options and recommendations for assisting worker adjustment to
technological change focus on the two groups that may be affected
OCR for page 8
8 TECHNOLOGYAND EMPLOYMENT
adversely by such change: experienced workers who may lose their jobs
as a result of the adoption of technology, and labor force entrants, whose
employment prospects may be reduced by technological change. Our
options and recommendations to assist experienced displaced workers
focus primarily on modifications in the primary federal program for
which technologically displaced workers, as well as workers displaced
by other causes, are eligible, Title III of JTPA. We also suggest other
policies (advance notification of plant shutdowns and large-scale layoffs)
to enhance the effectiveness of Title III. Our recommendations to aid
labor force entrants focus on the need for additional research and
actions based on the reports of other expert groups, a decision that
reflects the fact that a complete evaluation of policies affecting the
educational attainment and basic skills preparation of entrants is beyond
the scope of this report. Our public policy recommendations also
address the impacts of technological change on the employment pros-
pects for minority and female members of the labor force.
Options for Adjustment Assistance for
Displaced Workers
We recommend that action be taken to improve existing JTPA Title III
programs of job search and placement assistance and training in both
basic and job-related skills for displaced workers. We recommend that
some or all of the following options be implemented:
· broadening the range of employment services provided to displaced
workers and those facing imminent displacement, including job coun-
seling, skills diagnosis, job search assistance, and placement services;
· increasing the share of Title IIIfunds devoted to training in basic and
job-related skills;
long;
· broadening income support for displaced workers engaged in train
· instituting a program of federally provided direct loans or loan
guarantees, administered by state or local authorities, to workers dis-
placed by technological change, plant shutdowns, or large-scale layoffs
(these loans could be used by displaced workers to finance retraining or
relocation or to establish new businesses); and
· establishing a program for demonstrations and experiments with
rigorous evaluation requirements to test and compare specific program
designs.
In addition to these modifications to JTPA, we recommend revising state
unemployment compensation laws to guarantee explicitly that displaced
OCR for page 9
EXECUTIVE S UMMAR Y 9
workers who are eligible for unemployment compensation can continue to
receive benefits while undertaking retraining.
We have concluded that the federal government should be the primary
source of funding for the abovementioned policy options. Federal fi-
nancing is preferable to state funding because of the inequities created by
differences in the level of state resources for such programs. Indeed,
states that are experiencing severe economic dislocations are likely to
face serious problems in funding significant displaced worker programs.
In view of the fact that one of the central motives for worker adjustment
programs is the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of new
technology adoption among the U.S. population, the avoidance of re-
gional inequities is an important consideration. One option for financing
the economic adjustment loans, like the arrangements for other federal
loan programs, would employ the Federal Financing Bank and therefore
would not require federal funds from general revenues.
Estimates of the costs of these adjustment assistance options for
displaced workers depend on estimates of the population of displaced
workers. In Chapter 3, we note that estimates of the number of workers
displaced annually range from 1 million, if displaced workers are defined
as individuals with 3 years' employment in their jobs prior to layoff, to 2.3
million. Cost estimates also depend on assumptions about the rates of
worker participation in such programs, an area in which reliable data are
scarce. Existing programs that combine income support with retraining
for displaced workers, such as the UAW-Ford program, have enrolled
10-15 percent of the eligible population (see Chapter 71. Although we lack
conclusive evidence on this point, it may be that participation rates would
be higher in programs involving displaced workers from industries that
pay lower wages than the automotive industry.
We have compiled estimates of the costs to the federal government of
job search assistance, training, and extended unemployment compensa-
tion for two values of the annual flow of displaced workers (the two values
are drawn from the 1984 survey of displaced workers conducted by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): 1 million workers, which is the
estimated number of displaced workers who had been employed for 3 or
more years in the job from which they were displaced; and 2.3 million,
which is the estimated total number of workers suffering permanent job
loss. As estimated rates of participation in these programs range from 5 to
30 percent of the displaced worker population, the estimated costs of
these policy options range from $131 million (5 percent participation rated
'Participation rates also will be affected by the policies and guidelines adopted by states
in administering any system of training, job search assistance, and income support.
OCR for page 10
10 TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLO YMENT
to $786 million (30 percent) for an annual flow of 1 million displaced
workers. It is important to note that the highest estimated participation
rate exceeds any observed thus far in a displaced worker training program
In the United States. If we assume that the flow of eligible displaced
workers is 2.3 million annually, the estimated costs of the program range
from $301 million (5 percent participation rate) to about $1 8 billion (30
percent).2 JTPA Title III outlays for fiscal year 1987 are roughly $200
million, although a significant expansion has been proposed in the
President's budget for fiscal year 1988.
How could these policy options be financed? The panel discussed
revenue alternatives and found no single method that was preferable to all
others on equity and other grounds. In the absence of evidence suggesting
that one alternative is superior to all others, the decision on funding
sources and budgetary reallocations is properly political, involving con-
siderations that extend well beyond this panel's charge.
Advance Notice of Plant Closures and
Large Permanent Layoffs:
We have concluded that substantial (a minimum of 2-3 months)
advance notice of permanent plant shutdowns and large permanent
lay odds others significant benefits to the workers who are displaced and to
the nation by reducing the average duration of the workers' unemploy-
ment and lessening the public costs of such unemployment. The current
system of voluntary advance notice, however, fails to provide sufficient
advance notice to many U.S. workers. We therefore recommend that
federal action be taken to ensure that substantial advance notice is
provided to all workers. Although the panel agreed on the needforfederal
action to broaden the coverage of advance notice within the U.S. work
force, panel members were not unanimous in their support of a specific
legislative or administrative mechanism to achieve this goal. The panel
believes that the following alternatives are viable options to achieve
broader advance notice, with appropriate provisions to reduce the burden
on small business and provide for unforeseen circumstances:
~ federal action to require employers to provide substantial advance
notice of permanent plant shutdowns and large permanent layoffs; or
Of the annual flow of displaced workers is estimated to amount to 1.2 million workers (the
estimate used by the Secretary of Labor's Task Force on Economic Change and Disloca-
tion, 1986), the estimated costs of these options range from $157 million to $943 million.
3Panel member Anne 0. Krueger dissents from this recommendation. Her statement
appears in Appendix D.
OCR for page 11
EXECUTIVE 5 UMMAR Y 1 1
· federal action to provide tax incentives for employers to give such
notice.
The current system of voluntary advance notice does not provide workers
with the "best-practice" amount of advance notice (a minimum of 2-3
months) as Chapter 7 notes, too few workers are notified in advance of
permanent plant closures or large permanent layoffs, thus hampering their
adjustment. When workers receive sufficient advance notice, the evidence
suggests that they adjust more rapidly and more successfully to job loss,
which reduces the costs of displacement to them and to the public sector. We
believe that the benefits of advance notice more than outweigh the costs of
such a policy~osts that exist, but that are distributed differently, when no
advance notice is provided. When advance notice is given, the costs of
worker displacement are shared by taxpayers, by the displaced workers, and
by the firms closing plants or permanently discharging workers, rather than
being borne primarily by taxpayers and the workers being laid off.
Through its public policies, this society has made a judgment that the
costs of many regulations (e.g., those covering health and safety, con-
sumer protection, or securities markets) that enhance the flow of infor-
mation to workers and consumers and distribute costs more equitably
among workers, consumers, and firms are more than offset by the benefits
of such policies. We believe that advance notice falls into the same
category of public policy and that steps to mandate this practice should be
taken by the federal government.
Training for Labor Market Entrants
We share the concerns of other studies, set forth in the reports of the
COSEPUP Panel on Secondary School Education for the Changing
Workplace ("High Schools and the Changing Workplace: The
Employers' View,'' 1984>, the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, of
the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy ("A Nation Pre-
pared: Teachers for the 21st Century," 1986J, and the U.S. Department
of Education ("A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform," 1983J, regarding the amount and quality of basic skills prepa-
ration provided to labor force entrants by U.S. public schools. Improve-
ment in the basic literacy, problem-solving, numerical reasoning, and
written communication skills of labor force entrants is essential. We
endorse additional public support for research on strategies to achieve
this goal, as well asfinancial support for the implementation of programs
that improve the basic skills of labor force entrants and of those already
in the labor force who lack these skills.
OCR for page 12
12 TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYMENT
Equal Employment Opportunity
We recommend more vigorous enforcement of policies to combat racial
and sexual discrimination in the labor market as a means of improving
the ability of minority and female workers, as well as minority and
female labor force entrants, to adjust to the demands of technological
change.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY TO SUPPORT THE
ADOPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
We support continued high levels of investment by industry and the
federal government in basic and applied research- this is the essential
"seed corn" of innovation, and such investments play a significant role in
the education of scientists and engineers. Federal support for nondefense
R&D is particularly important, in view of the limited commercial payoffs
from the high historical levels of defense R&D in this country (there are
important but limited exceptions to this generalization, as noted in
Chapter 2~. The foreseeable contribution of defense R&D to the civilian
U.S. technology base appears to be limited at best.
In addition to a strong research base, however, public policies to
support more rapid adoption of new technologies within this economy
deserve consideration. The historic focus of post-World War II science
and technology policy on the generation rather than the adoption of new
civilian technologies (once again, a generalization with several impor-
tant exceptions) contrasts with the orientation of public science and
technology policy in several other industrial nations (e.g., Japan,
Sweden, and West Germany) and may have contributed to more rapid
adoption of manufacturing process innovations and more rapid commer-
cialization of new product technologies in those nations. We therefore
support the development and evaluation of additional public policies to
encourage the more rapid adoption of new technologies within the
United States.
We recommend increased federal support for activities and research to
encourage more rapid adoption of new technologies. Although the
achievement of this goal requires actions in a number of areas not
considered by this panel, our review of policies leads us to recommend
the following options for consideration:
· Strengthen research on technical standards by public agencies
(primarily the National Bureau of Standards) to support, where appro-
priate, private standard-setting efforts.
· Strengthen research programs supporting cooperative research be
OCR for page 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
tween industry and the federal government in the development and
application of technologies.
· Increase support for federal programs to improve U.S. firms' access
to foreign science and engineering developments and innovations.
THE ADEQUACY OF THE DATA
In the course of this study, the panel has found that the data available
from public sources are barely sufficient to analyze the impacts of
technology on employment. In some cases this data problem reflects the
rapid expansion of new sectors of the economy, such as services, for
which federal agencies have been hard-pressed to monitor and collect
data comparable in quality and quantity to those available for manufac-
turing. In other cases these data have declined in quality during the past
decade as a result of reductions in data collection budgets. The amount
and quality of data on evaluations of worker adjustment assistance
programs also must be improved.
· We recommend that post-fiscal year 1980 reductions in key federal data
collection and analysis budgets be reversed and that (at a minimum' these
budgets be stabilized in real terms for the next decade in recognition of the
important "infrastructural" role data bases play within research and
policymaking. We urge that a portion of these budgets be devoted to
improvements in the collection and analysis of employment, productivity,
and output data on the nonmanufacturing sector of this economy.
· We recommend that a new panel study or a supplement and
follow-up to the Current Population Survey be undertaken by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics to examine the effects of technological change on the
skill requirements, employment, and working conditions of individuals of
working age. We also support the development by the Census Bureau of
better data on technology adoption byfirms.
· We recommend that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expand its survey
of displaced workers (the special supplement to the Current Population
Survey' to allow annual data collection and that this survey improve its
question on the nature and effect of advance notice of layoffs.
· We recommend that any expansion of adjustment assistance services
for displaced workers be accompanied by rigorous evaluations of these
programs to provide information on the long-term effectiveness of dif-
ferent program designs and strategies.
To reduce the potentialfor conpicts of interest that may arise when an
organization charged with operating adjustment assistance programs has
sole responsibility for the design and administration of evaluations of
these programs, we recommend that federal or state agencies responsible
OCR for page 14
14 TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLO YMENT
for the operation of such programs share with other agencies the
responsibility for evaluating them, or conduct such evaluations with the
advice of independent expert panels.
· We recommend that evaluations be undertaken of the implementa-
tion of the provisions of the Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984
that allow federal and state funds to be usedfor improving the skills of the
employed work force. In addition, a federally sponsored evaluation of a
sample of state-level programs in upgrade training should be undertaken
to determine the overall effectiveness of such programs and the specific
design features that contribute to success.
HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS OF
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
We recommend a major interdisciplinary study of the consequences of
technological change for workplace health and safety and the regulatory
structure designed to ensure that worker health and safety are protected.
These areas also should be monitored carefully by federal and state
agencies.
Recommendations for the Private Sector
LABOR-MANAGEMENT COLLABORATION IN
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
Rates of adoption of new technologies, as well as the exploitation of
computer-based manufacturing and office automation technologies to
increase worker productivity, satisfaction, and safety, are affected signif-
icantly by the management of the adoption process. If the process
proceeds smoothly, both workers and management can benefit from these
technologies, which have the potential to enrich work as well as to
enhance its efficiency. The potential payoffs from cooperation between
labor and management in technology adoption are high, but such coop-
eration has been lacking in some U.S. industries. Our recommendations
in this area highlight some key components of successful adoption
strategies.
Elements of "Best-Practice" Strategies
for Technology Adoption
· We recommend that management give advance notice of and consult
with workers about job redesign and technological change.
OCR for page 15
~y lj
~ ~ ,8~d fA~' fA~ ~ ~ ~8 If 68
fit 6> 8~/~'~/~fei /~' i~ 8~/~' iec~^
fig; 3~cA ro&cis3 I/ rs'r~f~f~g ~ed ~r orAsr~63
reD~ o~ fit r~r '6~ ~ Brat /~# ~r po~F
6~. 4' ~e ~e afar, ~ ~d ~ m~' recog~e ~ ~ fig
~~re prod~re ~/~ ~d If If ~ ~( I/
6 If fig ~r ~A ~/~' If If.
If
I /~' m~' ~nd ~or o~~re fAe ~e ~^
~8p~ ~rperm~'~ ~ I. ~ ~e
S~6 68~ ~ fAe ere~' ~rm 3 6~, ~8 ~o reCOmms~d fA~'
In/ ~d ~ If e~/~g ~ afar I Amp.
EDUCATION FOR MERGERS
~ recom~~ f6~' f68 c~' -~ fo ~ fAe If
A/ eJ~ fig /Ae m~6 ~, ~d If/
d Daft ~d Afar ~ proce~ 6e craft,
6~6 ~ffAf~ If ~ ~d /~gA orAer fife. I/
re,~6 o~ fA~ '~~ ~ ~d ~d co~/d 6~d fA~~6 ~fre~f~
if r~6 If, ~g ofAerpo~f~f&ffe~. If
fA03s C~ e-/~d ~3 m~ ~O m~' 6e i/~ed fO
If f~cho~ fig 'Ae ~ ~ ~ If ~d fig
Iffy Ae~f~ /~e ~e ~' /o If/ cA~.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
advance notice
