this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
517 points (87.5% liked)
Technology
59440 readers
3566 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know this isn't the most popular opinion, but I love self-checkout systems when they're available and used correctly. My local supermarket closed 2 10-item-or-less lanes and put 6 self-checkouts in the same space. I probably make 2 trips/week to the store for fewer than 10 items, and being able to check myself out has been a huge time saver. There are still another 8 lanes with cashiers for larger shopping trips. If the supermarket can avoid the race to the bottom thinking of "well, we replaced 2 lanes, maybe we can also replace the other 8), it'll be a nice compromise.
Now contrast that with my local Home Depot, which typically has 1-2 cashiers MAX at any given time. They have turned the checkout process into a tedious pain in the ass, and I've more or less stopped shopping there as a result.
When self-checkouts were first rolled out, my friends and I loved them.
As twenty-something introverted nerds, it helped a lot when buying "embarrassing" things like condoms.
You didn't have to have the checkout person giving you the stink-eye because they're ultra religious or something.
Now, twenty-some years on, they've been abused to the point that some places they're all that's ever open, Target and Walmart seem to be the biggest offenders there. When there's a line down three different aisles because the self-checked is so backed up, it's defeated the purpose of creating "efficiency."
However, I've noticed that about a lot of business practices lately. We've rounded the bend and they're still doing things that aren't actually producing efficiency anymore. Like staffing with nothing but a skeleton crew, so anytime someone calls out sick, everything falls apart because you're short a person. Personal opinion, but if one person missing work wrecks everything, that's not an efficient way to schedule people.
It's proof that these MBA business school chucklefucks are just repeating the shit they tell each other ad nauseum, because when it comes to real-world results the results are abysmal and inefficient.
That’s just lean. If one employee is sick, everything falls apart. If the delivery of a specific part to the production line is delayed, everything stops.
It’s all very intentional, because it’s lean. Having buffers of any kind costs money, while making everything lean makes it cheaper to run your company. As usual, all of this is also reflected on profits and dividend income.
edit: splling and gremmar
And it pushes the cost of redundancy into the backs of the workers who didn’t call in sick, and have to work more hours or more tasks in a day or risk being responsible for an underperforming store.
If it actually hurt monthly profits, they wouldn’t do it. The fact that it may hurt longer term profits—through delays, employee retention, or quality control—either isn’t understood by the C suite, or they just don’t care.