San Francisco Stores Stopping Self Checkout

[storewanderer]

i think stores will be shutting down self-checkout and restrict hours for minors to come in the stores in the next year to try to reverse trends and encourage more app ordering and delivery.

Chains that do this will lose business to the next chain who does not add friction to the customer's shopping experience. There is still enough competition that this can't happen yet in the US.

[ClownLoach]

i think stores will be shutting down self-checkout and restrict hours for minors to come in the stores in the next year to try to reverse trends and encourage more app ordering and delivery.

One online order takes up to 30X the payroll of a single full service checkout order. Based on this proven metric if even more than 5% of a store's business moves online then self checkout becomes a firm requirement instead of a suggestion.

Dig a little deeper and you'll realize that the stores who are not doing much with self checkout are also those who don't really care about selling online (Trader Joe's, TJ Maxx, etc.).

Self checkout is not going away and furthermore the video processing power of AI and the technological wizardry of RFID will completely eliminate both full service checkout AND self checkout fraud in the next few years.

If you want to experience the future today, go look up Uniquo self checkout. You can have a mangled basket of clothes you've selected carelessly and just shove them into the bin on the self checkout register and they're all simultaneously scanned with radio frequency ID and your itemized total appears in less than a second on the screen. Science fiction type videos from the 1980s said someday we will have what looks like a CT scanner that scans your entire grocery store cart... The day for this is now and I guarantee you by 2030 there will be multiple chains that will have already converted to entirely RFID "instant" self checkout. There will be adjustments especially in produce which will likely look more like a hybrid of Costco and SuperTarget with everything somehow wrapped or bagged, but it's going to happen. Self checkout is not going to go away because it has become essential to offset the very expensive and frivolous curbside pickup services everyone expects "for free." As far as minor regulations go, I have heard that small businesses like convenience stores have already been sued successfully for age discrimination for no minors requirements. It seems only the government can decide where age restrictions can take place, not the public.

[HCal]

One online order takes up to 30X the payroll of a single full service checkout order. Based on this proven metric if even more than 5% of a store's business moves online then self checkout becomes a firm requirement instead of a suggestion.

Or looking at it another way, if stores are willing to pay staff for online order fulfillment, then the cost of a staffed checkout lane are trivial in comparison.

As far as minor regulations go, I have heard that small businesses like convenience stores have already been sued successfully for age discrimination for no minors requirements. It seems only the government can decide where age restrictions can take place, not the public.

Do you have any citations to these cases? As far as I'm aware, in the US there are no laws against age discrimination for customers of businesses, at least at the federal level. That is how you have things like senior's discounts.

[BillyGr]

One online order takes up to 30X the payroll of a single full service checkout order. Based on this proven metric if even more than 5% of a store's business moves online then self checkout becomes a firm requirement instead of a suggestion.

Self checkout is not going to go away because it has become essential to offset the very expensive and frivolous curbside pickup services everyone expects "for free."

Seems like they are missing the answer - start having more charges/fees for those who want to have the orders put together for them (be it for pick up or delivery). That way, those who use the expensive service are paying for the cost of it and not the rest of the customers.

If that causes a few people to stop getting the service and go back to shopping for themselves, that only helps their profits (since even with the fee, they are still spending more on those pickup orders).

After all, it seems every other service that does deliveries from businesses charges (be it groceries through the outside services like Instacart or food deliveries), so people can't "get around" it by using those either.

[ClownLoach]

One online order takes up to 30X the payroll of a single full service checkout order. Based on this proven metric if even more than 5% of a store's business moves online then self checkout becomes a firm requirement instead of a suggestion.

Self checkout is not going to go away because it has become essential to offset the very expensive and frivolous curbside pickup services everyone expects "for free."

Seems like they are missing the answer - start having more charges/fees for those who want to have the orders put together for them (be it for pick up or delivery). That way, those who use the expensive service are paying for the cost of it and not the rest of the customers.

If that causes a few people to stop getting the service and go back to shopping for themselves, that only helps their profits (since even with the fee, they are still spending more on those pickup orders).

After all, it seems every other service that does deliveries from businesses charges (be it groceries through the outside services like Instacart or food deliveries), so people can't "get around" it by using those either.

This is what I have been preaching for a long time, and it is starting to happen. Sam's added a $4/order charge for regular members. Kohl's and Michaels stopped curbside and moved to self service pickup bins. The online pickup concept goes against every headwind that retail is struggling to overcome and basically creates a situation where stores are spending big dollars to make pennies if anything at all. Wall Street is the one pushing the agenda because they are heavily invested in the big tech companies that sell the software and services needed to add the omnichannel capabilities. They don't care if their $5B retail investments go out of business as long as their $500B software company investments are making money. They are force feeding this agenda upon the retail industry and creating a self fulfilling prophecy where e-commerce destroys retail, but not because it's better or faster or easier-rather because it makes money for the unrelated 3rd parties. In the end everyone pays more while the fat cats get richer.

[ClownLoach]

One online order takes up to 30X the payroll of a single full service checkout order. Based on this proven metric if even more than 5% of a store's business moves online then self checkout becomes a firm requirement instead of a suggestion.

Or looking at it another way, if stores are willing to pay staff for online order fulfillment, then the cost of a staffed checkout lane are trivial in comparison.

As far as minor regulations go, I have heard that small businesses like convenience stores have already been sued successfully for age discrimination for no minors requirements. It seems only the government can decide where age restrictions can take place, not the public.

Do you have any citations to these cases? As far as I'm aware, in the US there are no laws against age discrimination for customers of businesses, at least at the federal level. That is how you have things like senior's discounts.

The costs of a staffed checkout lane are trivial if there is not an excess of online orders. Where you're missing the point is that the store cannot just balloon from a cost perspective and remain profitable. The stores unfortunately are not selling more merchandise than they did before online orders, but the online order drastically increases the fulfillment cost. So something has to give, either labor reductions elsewhere, surcharge like convenience fees for online orders (my preferred solution), limits on online orders with minimum amount required (my second preference), or last increase prices. And let's not get into the facetious arguments around how much the CEO gets paid etc because last time I did that calculation for my company if their entire pay went to the frontline employees it amounted to a one time $20 check per worker. Most recently retailers are moving to cut management positions and pay, thus eliminating the path to promotion. I worked my way from a part time $5.35/hour salesperson to a District Manager over 15 years, earning every promotion along the way while I developed even more workers into Managers and changed their lives for the better. Today's retail worker is unlikely to have the ability to climb the ladder like I did because of the stupidity of unprofitable operational decisions that remove opportunities for career advancement.

I no longer have access to my university databases now that I have graduated. The discrimination piece comes from exclusionary tactics where there is no reasonable threat to safety, moral corruption, or other such pressing public need. You're a bar? You have to discriminate and ban those under 21 because otherwise it is easy for underage individuals to get alcohol. But if you're Target and sell household goods and toys then how can you say it is inappropriate for minors to visit the store? That is where the issue was but unfortunately I no longer have access to those databases but I found it very interesting that there were legal challenges to those policies.

[HCal]

I no longer have access to my university databases now that I have graduated. The discrimination piece comes from exclusionary tactics where there is no reasonable threat to safety, moral corruption, or other such pressing public need. You're a bar? You have to discriminate and ban those under 21 because otherwise it is easy for underage individuals to get alcohol. But if you're Target and sell household goods and toys then how can you say it is inappropriate for minors to visit the store? That is where the issue was but unfortunately I no longer have access to those databases but I found it very interesting that there were legal challenges to those policies.

I can't find any evidence of a successful legal challenge. There may have been challenges, and while this may seem discriminatory, at the end of the day, there is no law against it. Title II Of The Civil Rights Act, which covers businesses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin, but does not mention age or gender.

[ClownLoach]

I no longer have access to my university databases now that I have graduated. The discrimination piece comes from exclusionary tactics where there is no reasonable threat to safety, moral corruption, or other such pressing public need. You're a bar? You have to discriminate and ban those under 21 because otherwise it is easy for underage individuals to get alcohol. But if you're Target and sell household goods and toys then how can you say it is inappropriate for minors to visit the store? That is where the issue was but unfortunately I no longer have access to those databases but I found it very interesting that there were legal challenges to those policies.

I can't find any evidence of a successful legal challenge. There may have been challenges, and while this may seem discriminatory, at the end of the day, there is no law against it. Title II Of The Civil Rights Act, which covers businesses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin, but does not mention age or gender.

Unfortunately I don't have access anymore. There was a case cited in a lecture in a Diversity and Inclusion course I took. It was a California case (surprise, surprise). It could have been overturned since I took the class about three years ago.

And more importantly, the last five years or so I have seen a drastic and dramatic shift in the boardroom and executive meetings when it comes to any matter that is age related or could even be extrapolated to it. So even if there isn't enough definitive casework there clearly is litigation that occurs enough to for example cause the Legal Dept. at my last company to fear potential claims of discrimination by elderly customers if we stopped accepting paper checks. I was incredulous over it since major companies like Walmart no longer do paper checks but instead switched to EFT, but because apparently our demographics indicated a higher percentage of older customers who paid with paper checks it was a specific shoot-down by the legal department at the time. All of operations wanted to make the change.

Remember that there is the law as written, law as found by the courts, the court of public opinion, and the "legal climate." Just because case law hasn't changed yet does not mean that you want your company to be the name cited on Customer V. Retailer in the Supreme Court. There is significant concern in the legal community around anything regarding age right now, thus the legal climate issue. If the lawyers that make annually many times more than what you and I will make in our lifetimes fear that there is a future court case to be lost, then it will be as if the case has already been tried and resolved.

[storewanderer]

I no longer have access to my university databases now that I have graduated. The discrimination piece comes from exclusionary tactics where there is no reasonable threat to safety, moral corruption, or other such pressing public need. You're a bar? You have to discriminate and ban those under 21 because otherwise it is easy for underage individuals to get alcohol. But if you're Target and sell household goods and toys then how can you say it is inappropriate for minors to visit the store? That is where the issue was but unfortunately I no longer have access to those databases but I found it very interesting that there were legal challenges to those policies.

I can't find any evidence of a successful legal challenge. There may have been challenges, and while this may seem discriminatory, at the end of the day, there is no law against it. Title II Of The Civil Rights Act, which covers businesses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin, but does not mention age or gender.

Here in Nevada over the years I have seen multiple examples of what may be considered age discrimination at businesses.

For instance a pizza parlor near a high school with a policy of nobody under 18 without an adult before 3 PM or something.

A casino (including motel rooms detached, bar in casino, restaurant in casino) with a policy that they do not allow anyone under 21 to enter the facility containing the bar/casino/slot machines for any reason. Typically minors can walk through a casino to get to a restaurant. This restaurant refuses to serve minors (even if they are with their parents) due to being part of the casino.

Another one I've seen is hotels (various states) with minimum check in ages of age 18 or age 21. I may understand the minimum age of 18 for liability purposes. Even like a Motel 6 type place off the highway in the middle of nowhere with a minimum check in age of 21 (while the next Motel 6 down owned by someone else may have a minimum check in age of 18).

[ClownLoach]

I no longer have access to my university databases now that I have graduated. The discrimination piece comes from exclusionary tactics where there is no reasonable threat to safety, moral corruption, or other such pressing public need. You're a bar? You have to discriminate and ban those under 21 because otherwise it is easy for underage individuals to get alcohol. But if you're Target and sell household goods and toys then how can you say it is inappropriate for minors to visit the store? That is where the issue was but unfortunately I no longer have access to those databases but I found it very interesting that there were legal challenges to those policies.

I can't find any evidence of a successful legal challenge. There may have been challenges, and while this may seem discriminatory, at the end of the day, there is no law against it. Title II Of The Civil Rights Act, which covers businesses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin, but does not mention age or gender.

Here in Nevada over the years I have seen multiple examples of what may be considered age discrimination at businesses.

For instance a pizza parlor near a high school with a policy of nobody under 18 without an adult before 3 PM or something.

A casino (including motel rooms detached, bar in casino, restaurant in casino) with a policy that they do not allow anyone under 21 to enter the facility containing the bar/casino/slot machines for any reason. Typically minors can walk through a casino to get to a restaurant. This restaurant refuses to serve minors (even if they are with their parents) due to being part of the casino.

Another one I've seen is hotels (various states) with minimum check in ages of age 18 or age 21. I may understand the minimum age of 18 for liability purposes. Even like a Motel 6 type place off the highway in the middle of nowhere with a minimum check in age of 21 (while the next Motel 6 down owned by someone else may have a minimum check in age of 18).

Nevada might as well be in a different universe from California.