Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

So because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?


sort by: page size:

It certainly doesn't help that a cashier doesn't make much in the first place.

If they're classified as employees, why should they get a percentage? Cashiers don't get a percentage of the total sale at a retail job.

Cashiers in the age of self-checkout machines are IMO a good example of a useless job, I'd rather prefer these people do something else with their time.

I would even feel guilty to make them work when they aren't actually needed. Indeed, in the current system if they don't work they don't get money, but to me it's a wealth distribution problem. I'd rather have them get the same money and do whatever they like. It would be a net gain for society and a loss for nobody.


The disagreement on the “devalue” thing is probably one of semantics: I value the employee as a fellow human, but I don’t think the job of cashier is providing any value to me.

The existence of “cashier” as a job is an impediment to my goal: paying and walking out of a store with the goods I want. Any alternative system which involves fewer cashiers works quicker for me, observationally.

I think people - including cashiers - are inherently valuable. But having someone do a 1-1 cashier job is both wasting their time and costing the company (and me) unnecessary time and money. Their (valuable) labor would be better spent elsewhere.


Bizarre take. The only reason anybody would ever "have to" work as a grocery store cashier is if no better option was available to them. The elimination of those jobs hasn't created better jobs for people that previously might have been in that kind of position.

Your assertion doesn't even make 1st base by simply considering cashier = owner, as is the case of many small businesses; it conflates one possible usecase as the only valid usecase.

Every sentence you've written is the opposite of true.

And cashiers still have to do math. Most places don't have automatic change dispensers, nor can a machinr account for a customer suddenly switching which bills they're going to give you. I understand that never having had to work one of those jobs is a source of pride in a lot of places, but in this thread, it just outs you as ignorant.


Eliminating the discretion of a cashier is not a bad thing. It harms no one and makes their job easier.

> supermarket cashiers

Why do you think they're useless? They certainly aren't currently [1]. Someone has to do their work, either paid employees or unpaid volunteers (i.e. customers).

[1] at least until that Amazon fantasy-land store becomes a practical reality, if it ever does


An optimists view: being a cashier is not a great job, so we can make sure that nobody ever has to do it again.

(Supposedly this view is combined with basic income or something)


If you push back, nothing happens to you.

If the cashier pushes back, they may be punished (up to and including getting fired — there's more competition for cashier-level jobs than you think).


Is it just about purchasing access to certain consumer groups, or also a defensive move to preserve human cashiers jobs?

And yet if I went to work at a retail job, they wouldn’t care.

It’s purely to help themselves.


Pay based on efficiency? This might be something if efficiency were something that a cashier had much control of. As a cashier, you cannot control for folks that write checks, can't find their credit card, are confused by the machines to get cash back, or can't find that last penny in their pockets. You cannot control for folks that stand there and ask about every price, nor for the ones that are chatty or just move slowly.

It sounds like a trap. Move quickly, get higher scores for that, yet get reprimanded for poor customer service.


Retail employees don’t care about marginal lost profits of the corporate on individual interactions.

I think unfortunately you're right with your thoughts about the perception, but this leads to very misguided customer happiness management crap.

Since it's well known that cashiers (especially at grocery stores, but in most countries this is a general thing) are not that well paid while the work is all about speed and efficency (aside all those unpaid overtimes, at least in German discounters), it tells much about prevalent work ethics.

It should be

"Why on earth should those people stand while doing this monotonous work everybody needs to get done?"

instead of

"Why are those lazy people are allowed to sit while taking my hard earned money?"

But I doesn't think that those customer happiness advocates do care much about those trivial considerations.


Cashiers... :|

> And the cashiers had to stock shelves when there are no customers at the cash register so of course they were sweating.

> The idea is to have no stock room so they don’t have to hire stocking staff, and make the cashiers do it when they aren’t actively checking people out.

What's wrong with cashiers stocking shelves? Seems perfectly reasonable to simply keep working while you are on the clock.


> Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x.

I don't think so, because a cashier's main job is just to wait for customers to show up. They are faster at clearing bottlenecks when a lot of customers show up at once, but they don't handle anywhere close to 3x as many customers over the course of their entire shift.

next

Legal | privacy