(cross-posted from !cash)
Albert Hein has removed their ATMs in Amsterdam. I don’t think the machines were part of the Geldmaat cartel, so this move reduces ATM diversity and empowers the Geldmaat’s monopolizing stranglehold… makes the data collection more centralised. You are extra fucked when Geldmaat rejects your card because in some cities you have no other kind of ATM to try.
Some Spar locations previously had a quite generous cashback service. You could pay by card and get back as much as €150. It’s unclear if it’s just one Spar location that has cut this option off or if all of them. The generous cashback policy got me through the door. I would buy snacks and drinks I don’t really need just for the cashback service. It was a refuge from the ATM shit-show. If the whole Spar chain quit cashback, it would be cool if thousands of people would approach the register with a basket of food, ask for cashback, and abandon the food when refused. I wonder how many people would need to do that to create the perception that they are losing sales over the change.
Harming the cashiers will only cause the cashiers grief. It will not change the behavior of executives.
Giving the cashiers work to do does not “harm” them. If anything it improves their job security for them to have more work to do. They get paid the same whether it is putting back abandoned items or collecting money from shop supporters.
If the cost of unfruitful overhead labor coupled with lost sales does not change the behavior of the executives, fair enough, they are their own incompetent adversary in that case. We can setup conditions for them to make smart and favorable decisions but in the end it’s on them to make the smart decision.
So if it doesn’t harm the cashiers, why would the parent business care? I think your approach only works because when done in mass, it prevents the business from functioning correctly and I think in that hypothetical scenario, you’re definitely hurting cashiers.
It depends on the level of competency of the executives. If the approach done with low frequency, feedback to upper management could trigger someone to calculate whether lost sales is worth it. If it is done on a large scale, then less competency is required for upper management to do the calculation. So the frequency of abandoned carts to have effect depends on the competency of management.
it prevents the business from functioning correctly and I think in that hypothetical scenario, you’re definitely hurting cashiers.
It’s not a boycott. You can abandon a basket in one Spar shop to send a msg then still buy the stuff at another one.
But let’s suppose it’s not just a signal but actually a boycott. To harm the cashiers the boycott would have to be on such a large scale that it causes at least one Spar shop to shut down. Do you really believe that would happen? It’s beyond unrealistic. Only 60% of the population even cares about cash. Many fewer even shop at Spar to begin with. It would be unlikely if even just 1% were to boycott on this issue. Then you have to figure that the 40% of the population who is okay with forced banking and cashless society would counter the boycott by patronising Spar when they otherwise wouldn’t. On top of that, this is not a hill Spar would die on no matter how incompetent they are. They would give in to the boycott far before closing shop.
In short, you have no chance of harming cashiers.
