this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
971 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
88659 readers
4315 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those are great entry-level jobs I'd rather not be eliminated.. People > Computers in all ways.
My question is: Why have the employee there?
Why is them scanning my few items and pushing a button better than me doing it? We're doing the exact same thing and it takes very little work from me. It seems to me like them being there is just adding work for the sake of a job. Pointless. It's quicker and easier without them in my experience.
Why not add an additional person to the check-outs to hand me my bags so I don't have to pick them up from the counter? We can keep adding work for the sake of jobs.
As seen from what the company claims in the article, the employee is there, and it is better that they are, because people are both accidentally and intentionally bad at scanning everything and they're losing their ass.
Because of just that alone, the idea seems to be dying without the previous poster's philosophical argument, which is not invalid, even coming into play.