• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      No it’s probably the method that lands the most euros into the shareholders pockets, regardless of the effects in other places. Dollarstore in the US is this but then at an extreme, John Oliver did a nice piece on it.