Protecting UNION Jobs

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The Real Reason for Self-Checkout Bans




One group of progressive California lawmakers claims to have found an even better solution: banning self-checkout machines from stores in the name of fighting crime. In reality, this "anti-crime" bill is nothing more than naked protectionism for union jobs.

The proposed legislation would prohibit groceries and other retail stores from using self-checkout machines unless a host of conditions are met. These include having at least one staffed employee for every two self-checkout machines (and the employee must be exempt from any other duties), only permitting the machines to be used by shoppers with 10 items or fewer, and ensuring at least one regular cashier lane is also available at all times.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D–Los Angeles), calls her approach "smart" on crime instead of "hard on crime," telling The New York Times: "We have so many bills in this Legislature that are trying to increase penalties….We know that what makes our community safe is not more jail time and penalties. What makes our community safe is real enforcement, having real workers that are on the floor."

To underscore her point, Smallwood-Cuevas cites a study suggesting that retail theft is up to 16 times more likely to occur at self-checkout machines than at traditional registers, leading to an estimated $10 billion in annual losses for retailers.

A closer look at the fine print of the bill, however, reveals the true intent behind it. The legislation mandates that any store seeking to install self-checkout machines must first produce a study analyzing, among other things, the number of employees "whose duties would be affected by the workplace technology," as well as the "total amount of salaries and benefits that would be eliminated as a result of the workplace technology." The study must then be provided to employees potentially impacted by the technology (or their collective bargaining representatives) and posted "in a location accessible to employees and customers."

Were this a game of poker, this mandated study would be the tell: Smallwood-Cuevas and her fellow progressives are trying to tuck a pro–union jobs bill inside the Trojan horse of crime prevention.

Smallwood-Cuevas was a labor organizer before her legislative career, and some of the bill's biggest sponsors are labor unions. A press release on the United Food and Commercial Workers' website lauds the legislation, with the president of the local chapter complaining that "employers have increasingly implemented automated checkout to drastically cut staffing and reduce labor costs." The press release does not mention the word crime at all and only uses theft twice and shoplifting once. In contrast, jobs, staffing, and worker displacement are referenced a total of 10 times.
 

black dog

Free America
Funny article, I believe there are about 850,000 Union Grocery Store Workers in the USA.
Just Walmart has over 1.5 Million non union workers. It ain't about the Unions.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I don't care about Unions, but I do like to have a person at the check out.
The self serves are not my cup of tea.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Politicians never do anything they're not being paid to do, so why is this surprising?

You know I'm Just a Bill?

When I started I wasn't even a bill
I was just an idea
Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed
So they called their local Congressman, and he said
You're right, there oughta be a law.
Then he sat down
And wrote me out and introduced me to Congress.

Yeah, that's not how it works. If you want something from your Congresscrook you gotta show him the money. And you have to come high or stay home because someone who wants the opposite of what you want is greasing him too.

Anyway, self-checkout is like tranny bathrooms - there's a simple solution that should satisfy everyone but the most strident knucklehead, and yet the legislators are either too stupid to come up with it or they're being paid to not solve the problem.

Here's my solution.....ready?

Are you sure you're ready because this is so innovative it will blow your mind....

Here it is.....




Have some human checkers and some self-checkout.

:diva:

Isn't that just outrageously brilliant? So insightful and nuanced that your average lawmaker or corporate honcho would never ever think of it.




:rolleyes:
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
Politicians never do anything they're not being paid to do, so why is this surprising?

You know I'm Just a Bill?



Yeah, that's not how it works. If you want something from your Congresscrook you gotta show him the money. And you have to come high or stay home because someone who wants the opposite of what you want is greasing him too.

Anyway, self-checkout is like tranny bathrooms - there's a simple solution that should satisfy everyone but the most strident knucklehead, and yet the legislators are either too stupid to come up with it or they're being paid to not solve the problem.

Here's my solution.....ready?

Are you sure you're ready because this is so innovative it will blow your mind....

Here it is.....




Have some human checkers and some self-checkout.

:diva:

Isn't that just outrageously brilliant? So insightful and nuanced that your average lawmaker or corporate honcho would never ever think of it.




:rolleyes:
I lovvvvvvvvvve smart women. Well done!
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
I swear politicians and media people wake up every day thinking about how they can get people fighting with each other. "Hmmmm.....what can I **** up today.....?"
You've got to give credit where credit is due, the best solutions to correct a problem is often the most common sense one.
 

Bare-ya-cuda

Well-Known Member

The Real Reason for Self-Checkout Bans




One group of progressive California lawmakers claims to have found an even better solution: banning self-checkout machines from stores in the name of fighting crime. In reality, this "anti-crime" bill is nothing more than naked protectionism for union jobs.

The proposed legislation would prohibit groceries and other retail stores from using self-checkout machines unless a host of conditions are met. These include having at least one staffed employee for every two self-checkout machines (and the employee must be exempt from any other duties), only permitting the machines to be used by shoppers with 10 items or fewer, and ensuring at least one regular cashier lane is also available at all times.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D–Los Angeles), calls her approach "smart" on crime instead of "hard on crime," telling The New York Times: "We have so many bills in this Legislature that are trying to increase penalties….We know that what makes our community safe is not more jail time and penalties. What makes our community safe is real enforcement, having real workers that are on the floor."

To underscore her point, Smallwood-Cuevas cites a study suggesting that retail theft is up to 16 times more likely to occur at self-checkout machines than at traditional registers, leading to an estimated $10 billion in annual losses for retailers.

A closer look at the fine print of the bill, however, reveals the true intent behind it. The legislation mandates that any store seeking to install self-checkout machines must first produce a study analyzing, among other things, the number of employees "whose duties would be affected by the workplace technology," as well as the "total amount of salaries and benefits that would be eliminated as a result of the workplace technology." The study must then be provided to employees potentially impacted by the technology (or their collective bargaining representatives) and posted "in a location accessible to employees and customers."

Were this a game of poker, this mandated study would be the tell: Smallwood-Cuevas and her fellow progressives are trying to tuck a pro–union jobs bill inside the Trojan horse of crime prevention.

Smallwood-Cuevas was a labor organizer before her legislative career, and some of the bill's biggest sponsors are labor unions. A press release on the United Food and Commercial Workers' website lauds the legislation, with the president of the local chapter complaining that "employers have increasingly implemented automated checkout to drastically cut staffing and reduce labor costs." The press release does not mention the word crime at all and only uses theft twice and shoplifting once. In contrast, jobs, staffing, and worker displacement are referenced a total of 10 times.
“having real workers that are on the floor."

Correct me if I am wrong here but isn’t it against the law for an employee of a store to attempt to stop a criminal from walking out the door with stolen merchandise?
 

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
“having real workers that are on the floor."

Correct me if I am wrong here but isn’t it against the law for an employee of a store to attempt to stop a criminal from walking out the door with stolen merchandise?

That’s mostly by store policy. If there are legal proscriptions, I’ve not seen any.

There is the legal issue of civilians not being allowed to arrest someone’s freedom of movement because they aren’t sworn officers of the law. But there is also a fine line between stopping someone’s freedom of movement and swiping purloined goods from their grasp.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
If stores don't mind getting ripped off............ so be it IDGAF
Anything to be weighed or behind the counter, I call them like a crying bitch
 
Top