![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
low-end jobs
More recently, I've interacted with automation that is designed to specifically replace humans rather than broadening service. The automated check-out at grocery stores is the big example here. Instead of one cashier per line, stores now need one employee per 4 or so lines. This isn't making things more convenient for customers; unlike ATMs, the scanners are only available when the store is open anyway.
There are practical reasons I tend to avoid the automated checkouts, mostly related to speed. The line for the human has to be about three times as long as the line for the machine before the machine looks like a time-saver. People may get more proficient at scanning and packing over time, of course.
But I find that even absent that consideration, I'm reluctant to use the machine. Doing so helps to eliminate a low-end job that might be the only job the job-holder is capable of doing. Most of the cashiers I see at the grocery store aren't college-age kids looking for spending money; they're middle-aged and sometimes visibly handicapped.
This is not wholly a compassion-based argument; it's also one of expedience. I think we as a society are better off if almost everyone has a productive job. And some people are only capable of the lower-end jobs that are most in danger of being automated away. (Aside: for this reason, requirements for high minimum wages are also a bad idea -- don't make it cost-ineffective to hire people at prices they're willing to work for!)
We cannot avoid automation, of course, and in many cases it's a good thing. I'm no Luddite (she says, typing on her computer :-) ). But I kind of wish that we could focus it a little differently sometimes.
And yes, sometimes the humans are annoying to deal with. Last night I lost close to ten minutes to an inept cashier, and there is one (mentally challenged) bagger who I will never again allow to touch my groceries because he seems utterly bewildered by ideas like "the bread goes on top" (multiple failures). People who aren't capable of doing the job shouldn't hold the job anyway just out of pity. (Giant Eagle was right to fire the guy who was partially eating food and then putting the package back on the shelf, and I don't care that he didn't understand that this was wrong.) But y'know, the machines aren't painless either -- just try to get a scanning error fixed. And for the most part, the people holding these jobs are quite capable and willing to work, and I find I'm rooting for the people over the machines.
no subject
I've certainly been known to take my business elsewhere in the face of crap like that, and to tell the manager why. Of course, that's easier in a sizable city; I don't know if you have that option.
I almost always see lines for both humans and self-checkout. The lines for humans tend to be longer but faster. It only takes one person ahead of you in the self-check line who can't figure out the code for some produce or who can't find the bar code on a package or who thinks there's a price error to ruin your "quick trip to the store", after all.
It's too bad that people who are disabled/handicapped, who'd like to work and have something to do, risk losing their benefits and thus not having enough money to live by taking these jobs, though. There should be a better way to do it, I just don't know what. :-/
Indeed. And I don't see why this is hard: if the state has said you should get $X/month, and your job pays $X-Y/month, you should get Y instead of X if you have that job. Ok, it's not really that tidy because you have to account for the deductions from the paycheck (income taxes, social security, etc), but these are known quantities.
no subject
self-check line who can't figure out the code for some produce or who can't find the bar code on a package or who thinks there's a price error to ruin your "quick trip to the store", after all.
Actually, as implemented locally, that's not true: the self-serv machines are arranged in groups, and a single line forms behind each group of machines. This means all four machines have to be down or have problems for the line to be brought to a halt.
This can be done for the self-servs but not the full-servs: the full-serves take up too much physical space, while the self-servs can be packed tighter without compromising access.
Note that in my local store, the only self-servs are express lines. It demonstrates something interesting: the human cashiers are faster at scanning than their non-specialist customers, but the machines faster at handling the payment transaction. So it is more efficient to use a full-serv line only when you have enough items that faster scanning will save more time than faster transaction.
Since my grocery does a brisk business in take-out meals (salad bar, soup bar, stirfry bar, etc.) this makes a lot of sense.
Also, in my grocery store, they don't seem to hire baggers, or at least not in the hours I go. Usually the person at the register, after having scanned the groceries, has to turn around and bag. This is not efficient.
no subject
Ah. That would be nice. And this isn't the only application that could benefit from the "form single line" approach. It doesn't seem to be very common here -- banks and the post office but not otherwise, most of the time. Very frustrating.
In the hours when I shop there seems to be about a 50% chance of a bagger. It looks like they have fewer baggers than cashiers with dynamic reallocation based on need. So if I have a lot of things a bagger will probably show up, but not if I just have a few things. Pity, in a way -- if I have a lot of things then once I fill up the conveyor belt I could start bagging, but most of the time someone is already doing it.