If the technology is designed well it should be less work and training to use it than to train someone on a traditional way of doing things.

Example: Back in high school I worked at a grocery store and would occasionally fill in on the register to cover people's breaks. I had to be trained on various details of how the register worked, what a PLU number was, etc. I also had to understand how to give change, and to get the job I had to pass a math test, which was needed when the power went out and we had to do the job by hand for the people in the store. Now we have U-Scan and every single day people with 0 training walk into stores around the world and do the cashier's job themselves on a big touch screen. If they don't know what a PLU number is, they can just look something up by name, or tap a picture of it. Even for those who still use a normal register, I've seen one that tell you how to provide the change to a customer, so 0 math is needed, and I fully expect if the power went out they wouldn't let anyone go through the checkout process.

Most of the new technology being installed and used at these jobs isn't something that requires extensive training and skill. It is designed with the idea that someone who has no training should be able to walk up and use it. The technology and complication is in the code, not in the execution.

Apple lets me check myself out at their store using an iPhone. Should I get a discount for all the training I had to go through to allow myself to perform said task? It's not like these people need to be systems administrators. They're end users of software that is designed to be learned quickly, or require no real learning at all.