Unfortunately the camera on the new Verifone is a QR code reader.
I guess the skimmers are designed to interfere with the chip readers (maybe bending the card so it doesn't make contact, or creating a gap?), so the customer tries to use the card and winds up having to swipe it. Anywhere I see the old Verifone or Ingenico I pull on the front of the machine before using it. Home Depot did just get rid of the old Ingenico models but still hasn't enabled tap to pay. Lowe's supposedly was going to be fully tap to pay enabled including Apple Pay by now but I think they're behind in rolling that out.
What they can try to do is somehow obstruct the chip reader so it either cannot hold cards in or do something so it cannot read chips for some other reason (object in it so you can't insert the card all the way, but insert it enough for the reader to sense it was inserted). Somehow whatever they do has to get the Chip contact to occur still in order to have the three failed Chip read attempts so it will then default to a swipe Fallback. What is interesting is Mastercard I thought no longer allowed Fallback and would decline any transaction that was a Fallback, but I had particular issues with one of those old Wal Mart pinpads a few months ago and after three Chip failures it prompted to Swipe and it actually approved the transaction which was very surprising. I think a lot of issuers should no longer allow/approve Fallback. If your Chip won't read then you do a Contactless transaction. Otherwise you get a new card.
Contactless is by far the safest way to use a payment card as it alleviates risk of physical card skimming. It is also the cleanest way to use a payment card, those insert Chip slots are filthy inside from all the cards going in and out.
I notice Kroger now attaches a PIN to its gift cards (Kroger gift cards). Scratch off on the back of the card. Kind of funny. Also in Reno Smiths as of two days ago have also formally removed all Visa and Mastercard gift cards from the sales floor and you must go to customer service to purchase those. The signs are from corporate.
Workers at a Virginia Costco have won a Union drive.
I was rather surprised by the article, which indicates only 5% of Costco employees are Union members. So the vast majority of Costco stores are in fact non-union. They certainly have an interesting PR program because the public perception is that this is a Union company, even to the point that you see social media comments that customers choose Costco over Sam's because "it's an all union business." I also wonder how many of the Union stores are former Price Club sites, as I thought all of those locations are Union?
ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 12:05 pm
I also wonder how many of the Union stores are former Price Club sites, as I thought all of those locations are Union?
AFAIK, those are the only locations (besides this new one) that are Union. From some inside rumblings, that particular Virginia location has/had some pretty toxic management. I've heard so many mixed things about the Union overall (like the majority, I'm in a non-Union store), but I do hope it might keep corporate on their toes a bit.
ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 12:05 pm
I also wonder how many of the Union stores are former Price Club sites, as I thought all of those locations are Union?
AFAIK, those are the only locations (besides this new one) that are Union. From some inside rumblings, that particular Virginia location has/had some pretty toxic management. I've heard so many mixed things about the Union overall (like the majority, I'm in a non-Union store), but I do hope it might keep corporate on their toes a bit.
What is important here is Teamsters have a national contract they have negotiated with Costco. They bring an active real live contract to the table to give these employees an opportunity to vote on. I am not clear how Costco responded to the union drive but at least this was a union vote where everyone knew what they were getting. The employees knew the details of the contract they were going to be a part of because it was already drawn up at the national level with Teamsters, and Costco already knew what they were getting into as the contract was already in place for thousands of other employees/dozens of other stores. So to me this seems like a win-win and a model of how a union drive should go. I mean I'm sure Costco would prefer the store was not union but if you are going to have a union voted into your store this is a great way for it to happen and be structured.
Complete opposite of some other joke unions we hear about who have no history, no active contracts, no proof they even know how to negotiate a contract with an employer since they've never negotiated any actual active contracts before, no benefits programs, and it is unclear how they are even funded.
ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 12:05 pm
I also wonder how many of the Union stores are former Price Club sites, as I thought all of those locations are Union?
AFAIK, those are the only locations (besides this new one) that are Union. From some inside rumblings, that particular Virginia location has/had some pretty toxic management. I've heard so many mixed things about the Union overall (like the majority, I'm in a non-Union store), but I do hope it might keep corporate on their toes a bit.
What is important here is Teamsters have a national contract they have negotiated with Costco. They bring an active real live contract to the table to give these employees an opportunity to vote on. I am not clear how Costco responded to the union drive but at least this was a union vote where everyone knew what they were getting. The employees knew the details of the contract they were going to be a part of because it was already drawn up at the national level with Teamsters, and Costco already knew what they were getting into as the contract was already in place for thousands of other employees/dozens of other stores. So to me this seems like a win-win and a model of how a union drive should go. I mean I'm sure Costco would prefer the store was not union but if you are going to have a union voted into your store this is a great way for it to happen and be structured.
Complete opposite of some other joke unions we hear about who have no history, no active contracts, no proof they even know how to negotiate a contract with an employer since they've never negotiated any actual active contracts before, no benefits programs, and it is unclear how they are even funded.
Welp based on this attached memo and the way I read it, our current and departing CEO is less-than-pleased. I'm not really sure why this letter was distributed at all...it would have been smarter to say nothing at all.
No letter would be like downplaying the whole thing and hoping nobody finds out or hears it happened. As time goes on that could cause more unrest throughout the company as employees feel the company does not communicate openly with them about what is going on throughout the company.
The letter acknowledges the successful union vote and also makes it clear the company did not want the union to have a successful organizing drive. While the tone of the letter is somewhat off putting to me, maybe it is just me.
Had I been in their position, I'm not sure if I'd have issued a letter regarding this or not. If legal had a gun to my head and said you have to issue a letter to all employees acknowledging the union vote or else, the content would not have been much different... I would have quantified the "close vote." 51 of 100 employees? 65 of 100 employees? Just throw the straight number out and lose the "close" that is subject to interpretation.
I definitely would have changed the tone to something more open. The tone feels too solumn. Maybe it's just me.
storewanderer wrote: ↑December 29th, 2023, 11:35 pm
I see the letter two ways.
No letter would be like downplaying the whole thing and hoping nobody finds out or hears it happened. As time goes on that could cause more unrest throughout the company as employees feel the company does not communicate openly with them about what is going on throughout the company.
The letter acknowledges the successful union vote and also makes it clear the company did not want the union to have a successful organizing drive. While the tone of the letter is somewhat off putting to me, maybe it is just me.
Had I been in their position, I'm not sure if I'd have issued a letter regarding this or not. If legal had a gun to my head and said you have to issue a letter to all employees acknowledging the union vote or else, the content would not have been much different... I would have quantified the "close vote." 51 of 100 employees? 65 of 100 employees? Just throw the straight number out and lose the "close" that is subject to interpretation.
I definitely would have changed the tone to something more open. The tone feels too solumn. Maybe it's just me.
Well, I wouldn't have written the letter. But it almost seems like there is a closer relationship between the union and company than in most cases. And that might be what drives the (false) impression that Costco is a Union retailer when 95%+ of the company is in fact non-union and the CEO writes stuff like this. Teamsters include them on their list of union businesses even though they represent only a tiny fraction of the stores. An informal sample of pretty much everyone I've talked to the last few days indicates nearly 100% belief that Costco is an all-Union company and several people volunteered would not shop Sam's because it's anti-union and Costco is pro-union which is obviously far from true. They were shocked when I informed them their Costco is not union and showed them the article about how much Sam's has improved their wages, benefits, and workplace practices like consistent employee scheduling (even to the point of being better for the employee than the customer).
Well, I wouldn't have written the letter. But it almost seems like there is a closer relationship between the union and company than in most cases. And that might be what drives the (false) impression that Costco is a Union retailer when 95%+ of the company is in fact non-union and the CEO writes stuff like this. Teamsters include them on their list of union businesses even though they represent only a tiny fraction of the stores. An informal sample of pretty much everyone I've talked to the last few days indicates nearly 100% belief that Costco is an all-Union company and several people volunteered would not shop Sam's because it's anti-union and Costco is pro-union which is obviously far from true. They were shocked when I informed them their Costco is not union and showed them the article about how much Sam's has improved their wages, benefits, and workplace practices like consistent employee scheduling (even to the point of being better for the employee than the customer).
I am glad to see the letter as it clarifies where Costco is at regarding the union. It is helpful to know that.
Sam's has done a lot right. I'd like to see the Wal Mart side adopt some of those practices. I think there is a good chance of it happening.
Well, I wouldn't have written the letter. But it almost seems like there is a closer relationship between the union and company than in most cases. And that might be what drives the (false) impression that Costco is a Union retailer when 95%+ of the company is in fact non-union and the CEO writes stuff like this. Teamsters include them on their list of union businesses even though they represent only a tiny fraction of the stores. An informal sample of pretty much everyone I've talked to the last few days indicates nearly 100% belief that Costco is an all-Union company and several people volunteered would not shop Sam's because it's anti-union and Costco is pro-union which is obviously far from true. They were shocked when I informed them their Costco is not union and showed them the article about how much Sam's has improved their wages, benefits, and workplace practices like consistent employee scheduling (even to the point of being better for the employee than the customer).
I am glad to see the letter as it clarifies where Costco is at regarding the union. It is helpful to know that.
Sam's has done a lot right. I'd like to see the Wal Mart side adopt some of those practices. I think there is a good chance of it happening.
The vocabulary matches every Executive level Union prevention document I've read. They obviously are anti-Union and worse are getting false public perception of being a pro-Union company. It's a master work of PR. I am disgusted as I thought much better of Costco. Couple that with the fact that they are one of the lowest payroll operators in all of retail.
The vocabulary matches every Executive level Union prevention document I've read. They obviously are anti-Union and worse are getting false public perception of being a pro-Union company. It's a master work of PR. I am disgusted as I thought much better of Costco. Couple that with the fact that they are one of the lowest payroll operators in all of retail.
It is just strange since they negotiated that national contract with Teamsters in what appeared to be a quiet/peaceful manner. As if they wanted to work together.
We will see how many more stores organize.
Also since Virginia is a right to work state, some of the employees may opt to not join the union anyway.
