Get a discount for self service

Not sure of the point - you still need to spend money on the tech to make it work, and have some staff around to assist (ie ID).

For a small basket or trolley i prefer self serve, for a proper weeks shop then prefer a person
 
As it's specifically food retail, it arguably doesn't apply to general supermarkets perhaps. Although it would be easy enough to do in the software of self service checkouts - just a discount code to auto-apply on that checkout software as opposed to manned checkouts.
 
Tringa said:
Seems like a good idea.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced.

I can see how it might seem fair but there will be a lot of hidden costs that the company will have to cover, of which "stock shrinkage" will be just one. If the aim is just to protect jobs, then coming up with a ban on self checkout might make more sense, in my opinion.
 
cambsno said:
Not sure of the point - you still need to spend money on the tech to make it work, and have some staff around to assist (ie ID).

For a small basket or trolley i prefer self serve, for a proper weeks shop then prefer a person
Click to expand...

It must save the shops money as if if didn't they wouldn't do it.

I use the manned checkouts as often as possible in the vain hope this'll keep humans employed. I only use the self service ones grudgingly if there are big queues at the manned checkouts and only have one or just a few things but sometimes the queues are such that it's probably quicker to use the manned checkouts. As per Tesco this week, I saw the queues at the self checkout and went to a manned one.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It must save the shops money as if if didn't they wouldn't do it.

I use the manned checkouts as often as possible in the vain hope this'll keep humans employed. I only use the self service ones grudgingly if there are big queues at the manned checkouts and only have one or just a few things but sometimes the queues are such that it's probably quicker to use the manned checkouts. As per Tesco this week, I saw the queues at the self checkout and went to a manned one.
Click to expand...

Maybe they do save money - however you don't have the hassle of employing as many staff, what to do if numbers are down etc.. Like if all but 1 phone is sick you can only open 1 normal checkout. With self serve you could still open 5 or 6 for example.

But I don't get the using of them to keep people employed. Times change - we don't have fuel pump attendants anymore, nor bus conductors. There will for a significant period of time be a need for manned checkouts but soon it will be tags that are in the products (maybe) that self scan as you enter/exit the shop or something
 
cambsno said:
Maybe they do save money - however you don't have the hassle of employing as many staff, what to do if numbers are down etc.. Like if all but 1 phone is sick you can only open 1 normal checkout. With self serve you could still open 5 or 6 for example.

But I don't get the using of them to keep people employed. Times change - we don't have fuel pump attendants anymore, nor bus conductors. There will for a significant period of time be a need for manned checkouts but soon it will be tags that are in the products (maybe) that self scan as you enter/exit the shop or something
Click to expand...

If you need 10 workers you're going to have to employ how many? Each worker gets what? 5.6 weeks off and on average will be off sick or on training or otherwise unavailable for another week or two so on average that's 6 or 7 weeks each worker is unavailable amounting to 60 or 70 weeks for all 10 workers and suddenly you're under staffed most weeks at some times of the year. They'll save money by having a more automated system despite the costs.

Also I think there's a need for social contact. I see many people having chats with checkout staff and this may be the only contact some have that day. Plus the worker gets a job and structure in their lives and hopefully some self respect, satisfaction and money over what they'd get on social.

I'm all for staff, if it's possible and economic.
 
woof woof said:
If you need 10 workers you're going to have to employ how many? Each worker gets what? 5.6 weeks off and on average will be off sick or on training or otherwise unavailable for another week or two so on average that's 6 or 7 weeks each worker is unavailable amounting to 60 or 70 weeks for all 10 workers and suddenly you're under staffed most weeks at some times of the year. They'll save money by having a more automated system despite the costs.

Also I think there's a need for social contact. I see many people having chats with checkout staff and this may be the only contact some have that day. Plus the worker gets a job and structure in their lives and hopefully some self respect, satisfaction and money over what they'd get on social.

I'm all for staff, if it's possible and economic.
Click to expand...

So should we get rid of tractors and get vast swathes of people working the land to give social contact and structure? Do we stop WFH and make everyone work in an office? Choosing from a screen in fast food places is generally much better than the old way

There are plenty of jobs where people can get social contact and structure - in a pub or cafe for example, or even in shops like Currys or Next. I get that you may prefer a manned checkout but many will prefer a self service one too, so just have both and let the people decide for themselves
 
cambsno said:
we don't have fuel pump attendants anymore, nor bus conductors.
Click to expand...


Not here in the UK but both exist in Greece - with self service checkouts being absent everywhere!
 
cambsno said:
So should we get rid of tractors and get vast swathes of people working the land to give social contact and structure? Do we stop WFH and make everyone work in an office? Choosing from a screen in fast food places is generally much better than the old way

There are plenty of jobs where people can get social contact and structure - in a pub or cafe for example, or even in shops like Currys or Next. I get that you may prefer a manned checkout but many will prefer a self service one too, so just have both and let the people decide for themselves
Click to expand...

Did you read the bit about being economic or did you just make a conscious decision to reply with nonsense?

Maybe you didn't read it but anyway, I'm forming the opinion that you're not worth pursuing this with. Have a nice day.

But no. The sort of people you see chatting to the woman on the checkout as they pay for a bottle of milk and some cat food probably wont be chatting to the staff in Currys.

As I said. Have a nice day :rolleyes:
 
woof woof said:
Did you read the bit about being economic or did you just make a conscious decision to reply with nonsense?

Maybe you didn't read it but anyway, I'm forming the opinion that you're not worth pursuing this with. Have a nice day.

But no. The sort of people you see chatting to the woman on the checkout as they pay for a bottle of milk and some cat food probably wont be chatting to the staff in Currys.

As I said. Have a nice day :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course I did but jobs change over the years. If 10k of Tesco workers stop being employed on tills it doesnt mean 10k are now on the scrapheap, they will get jobs doing other things. Maybe moving into the job of doing the online shopping packing for example so if anyone is speaking nonsense it aint me!! The job I do no didnt exist 30 years ago, its called evolution!

And you know what, some of us dont want to be in a queue waiting to pay while the woman buying a bottle of milk is chatting about stuff.
 
woof woof said:
It must save the shops money as if if didn't they wouldn't do it.

I use the manned checkouts as often as possible in the vain hope this'll keep humans employed. I only use the self service ones grudgingly if there are big queues at the manned checkouts and only have one or just a few things but sometimes the queues are such that it's probably quicker to use the manned checkouts. As per Tesco this week, I saw the queues at the self checkout and went to a manned one.
Click to expand...
I have quite strong views on this, but accept that I may be atypical.

I was in my local Asda a few weeks ago, the staffed checkout that I went to had a guy who told me that he was worried about redundancy because they were "consulting" staff about replacing nearly all of the checkouts, which I personally dislike. This guy has obvious Downs Syndrome but was able to do his job - where will he find another one?

Next trip there, only 2 checkouts were staffed, the others were automated. I won't use them, I don't understand them, I don't want to have to learn how to use them, and I see little or no staff savings because of the number of staff who have to hang around when something goes wrong, to prevent blatant theft of when there are customers like me. I cannot see how a discount of anywhere near 10% could be offered.

Anyway, Asda seems to have made their decision, and I've made mine, there are plenty of other supermarkets nearby.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Anyway, Asda seems to have made their decision, and I've made mine, there are plenty of other supermarkets nearby.
Click to expand...
Everything you wrote agrees with my own opinions.

With 4.9% unemployment, it seems time to bring in a tax on technologies that replace people.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Everything you wrote agrees with my own opinions.

With 4.9% unemployment, it seems time to bring in a tax on technologies that replace people.
Click to expand...

Seems like a backward step and reminds me of the Luddite movement. Should we tax farm machinery too?

What people forget or miss is that life and jobs change. Back in the day we had thousands of farriers as horses were the main method of transport. They were replaced effectively by tyre fitters. Should DSCL and other photo processing places be taxed on the machines used to create prints rather than hundreds of people with tongs and trays of chemicals? Should computers and Excel be taxed - It would take 5 people+ to do my job with a calculator and pieces of paper!!

In an old style super market (shop floor) you have goods in, shelf stackers, checkout staff. In the new world you still have goods in (but using pallets and pallet trucks effectively replaces people), some checkout staff but other staff who are on hand to help and those that do online shopping. Then you also have the delivery drivers that are now part of the process. Quite possibly you have more staff, just moved around.
 
cambsno said:
Seems like a backward step and reminds me of the Luddite movement. Should we tax farm machinery too?

What people forget or miss is that life and jobs change. Back in the day we had thousands of farriers as horses were the main method of transport. They were replaced effectively by tyre fitters. Should DSCL and other photo processing places be taxed on the machines used to create prints rather than hundreds of people with tongs and trays of chemicals? Should computers and Excel be taxed - It would take 5 people+ to do my job with a calculator and pieces of paper!!

In an old style super market (shop floor) you have goods in, shelf stackers, checkout staff. In the new world you still have goods in (but using pallets and pallet trucks effectively replaces people), some checkout staff but other staff who are on hand to help and those that do online shopping. Then you also have the delivery drivers that are now part of the process. Quite possibly you have more staff, just moved around.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, but I don't accept that my view is Luddite.

Yes, horses needed to be replaced by tractors, which are far more efficient. One acre, 70 yards by 70 yards, was defined as the area that one man, working one oxen, could till in one 12 hour day, that system was grossly inefficient and I'm certainly not against progress, but sometimes progress goes too far, Sticking with the same example, a modern large tractor costs around £250K, it's hopelessly unreliable because it's controlled by computers not by skilled people, all maintenance and repairs have to be carried out by the main dealer at enormous cost because many of the manufacturers won't even make the software available to independent agricultural mechanics, and even the main dealers often can't fix them at all, let alone quickly - that isn't efficiency, it's capitalism gone mad, forcing small farms out of business and big farms into massive debt.

Supermarkets are a case in point. When they replace people with machines they take away customer choice and ignore customer preferences. It's fine having automation, but the choice needs to be there.

Another example is the NHS, it's now virtually impossible for people to manage without a computer, and elderly people who can't use devices can't even make appointments at many GP practices. Technology should be used as an asset, to improve quality, service and efficiency, it shouldn't exclude those who can't use it.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Technology should be used as an asset, to improve quality, service and efficiency, it shouldn't exclude those who can't use it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely.

Anyone who thinks that the wealth of one should justify the pauperisation of others, needs to be watched extremely carefully. I'm all for technology that lifts people out of poverty but dead against technology that pushes people into poverty.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree with you completely.

Anyone who thinks that the wealth of one should justify the pauperisation of others, needs to be watched extremely carefully. I'm all for technology that lifts people out of poverty but dead against technology that pushes people into poverty.
Click to expand...

To what extent?

There will normally be winners and losers for job changes. How do you balance that? Going back to the horse argument, should we have stuck with the horse as it kept lots of people in work, rather than make car dealers rich? Or (and I know you have an issue with tax & EV but putting that aside), EVs need less maintenance than a petrol car. If we were able to swap out all petrol cars overnight and replace with EV, you would find a large number of mechanics out of work. On the other hand, some would move to being EV techs, other jobs created in making batteries and EV components and more tyre fitters as they use tyres more.
 
cambsno said:
To what extent?

There will normally be winners and losers for job changes. How do you balance that? Going back to the horse argument, should we have stuck with the horse as it kept lots of people in work, rather than make car dealers rich? Or (and I know you have an issue with tax & EV but putting that aside), EVs need less maintenance than a petrol car. If we were able to swap out all petrol cars overnight and replace with EV, you would find a large number of mechanics out of work. On the other hand, some would move to being EV techs, other jobs created in making batteries and EV components and more tyre fitters as they use tyres more.
Click to expand...
Electric cars are a good example of Erwin Schrödinger's cat:)

Do a high mileage, have the facility to charge the thing at home and have the high capital cost available and it's not only alive, but thriving, although some of the quoted savings are reduced by high insurance and tyre costs and the planned introduction of a mileage tax.

But do a low mileage, have to pay inflated charging costs, or need to tow any kind of trailer, or drive off road, and it's very dead, at least in the UK. Not a problem for me personally because I won't live long enough for the choice of ICE or electric to disappear, but meanwhile that choice needs to continue.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Electric cars are a good example of Erwin Schrödinger's cat:)

Do a high mileage, have the facility to charge the thing at home and have the high capital cost available and it's not only alive, but thriving, although some of the quoted savings are reduced by high insurance and tyre costs and the planned introduction of a mileage tax.

But do a low mileage, have to pay inflated charging costs, or need to tow any kind of trailer, or drive off road, and it's very dead, at least in the UK. Not a problem for me personally because I won't live long enough for the choice of ICE or electric to disappear, but meanwhile that choice needs to continue.
Click to expand...

My point was around the jobs, there will be less demand for mechanics.

Or, maybe a better example, (globally) - 30 years ago many people made film and processed it. Now 99% of people shoot digitally and many never print. So all those jobs at kodak etc... lost or other jobs lost due to new tech. Am sure many would have been plunged into poverty as a result - so should we have stuck with film?
 
Garry Edwards said:
But do a low mileage, have to pay inflated charging costs, or need to tow any kind of trailer, or drive off road, and it's very dead,
Click to expand...
Once again, I agree.

The inability to understand that there will be more losers, often many more losers, than winners, is beyond the understanding of the selfish. That is why we need to explain more carefully the consequences of technological changes, before they happen and we need to encourage the involvement of every citizen in making those changes. As has been said before: democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for every other system of government.
 
cambsno said:
My point was around the jobs, there will be less demand for mechanics.

Or, maybe a better example, (globally) - 30 years ago many people made film and processed it. Now 99% of people shoot digitally and many never print. So all those jobs at kodak etc... lost or other jobs lost due to new tech. Am sure many would have been plunged into poverty as a result - so should we have stuck with film?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think that's a bad example.

Digital is far more effective, can create very high image quality and is the natural choice for most people. But there's a substantial minority of people, on here and elsewhere, who love the old film technology and their needs are still catered for. The problems arise when the choices no longer exist, and old people who don't know how to use a mobile phone are excluded from the medical care and other essential services that they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top