On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:45:33 +0000, MM wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:29:34 +0000, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:09:10 +0000, MM wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:56:12 +0000, Alex Heney
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:31:48 +0000, MM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:55:16 +0000, Alex Heney
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And I agree with Cynic here. It isn't, without incurring exorbitant
>>>>>>cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is nonsense. The staff member has to get the price from
>>>>>SOMEwhere, so why not just get the CORRECT price? You, like Cynic,
>>>>>make the application of correct price labels seem like a climb up
>>>>>Mount Everest. It isn't. It's a mundane, everyday task that takes no
>>>>>effort whatsoever. Applying the wrong price is just laziness, or
>>>>>carelessness, or deliberate fraud on the part of stores to make their
>>>>>prices seem more competitive, knowing that the vast majority of
>>>>>shoppers never check their receipts. Even if they risk deliberate
>>>>>fraud, they have little to fear from TS, as we have seen in these
>>>>>posts, since they can always claim "'twas an error, guv!"
>>>>
>>>>Why the . did you snip most of my post?
>>>>
>>>>The parts which made it quite clear why I agree with Cynic, and make a
>>>>nonsense of your claims?
>>>
>>>My claim is not nonsense, it is common sense.
>>
>>It is only common sense if you work on the basis that prices are only
>>ever created once for a given item.
>
>No, it's common sense the first, second, third, nth time, however many
>prices an item goes through in its lifetime. Take Heinz beans. They
>have been sold in British supermarkets for donkey's years, but the
>price today is not the same as it was ten years ago. Each time a price
>label needs to be placed the first time, or updated on subsequent
>price changes, any store should provide the staff member with a list
>of prices. If the list is WRONG, then that is due to carelessness.
All of which does not in the *slightest* address the point Cynic and I
have been making.
We have never suggested for one moment that it is the result of
anything other than carelessness. Almost all mistakes made anywhere,
in any walk of life are down to carelessness in some form.
It still takes significantly more effort to ensure the prices on the
shelves are correct than it does to not be sure.
And BTW, are you willfully ignoring the point we are making? You talk
here about "the list" being wrong, when neither of us have suggested
for one moment that is likely.
It isn't the list being wrong that is at issue - that is *extremely*
unlikely, given it will have been printed from the same computer data
as the tills use.
The issue is that while the staff may have a list of prices, the
*main* thing those tasked with putting the prices on the shelves will
have is a set of price labels.
these are physical things, which can be put in the wrong place, thus
leaving the old one next to the items (while probably removing a wrong
one), or can be mislaid, and so accidentally not replaced at all.
>Someone cocked up. They didn't make a mistake, they cocked up. Just
>like today at T5. A very major SNAFU. Every wrong price label is a
>SNAFU. It's common sense.
>
has anybody ever suggested otherwise?
>>
>>The FIRST time a price is put on the shelf for an item, I agree that
>>it is very little more effort to put out a correct price than a wrong
>>one.
>
>Not: "very little more effort", but NO extra effort, not one iota.
>Zilch extra. Just do it right first time. Airline pilots have to, else
>people die. Oh, and tell Cynic you agree with me, okay?
>
Of course I won't, since there is NO possibility you are even close to
correct here.
You aren't as stupid as your posts on this subject make you seem. Why
are you having so much difficulty with this subject?
>>But when prices change it is very easy to miss putting a new price on
>>something (say you dropped one label without noticing, or one was
>>stuck to the back of another you put out).
>
>It is only easy when the staff member is being careless, a condition
>that would render the employee unemployable in my store, if I had one.
This would soon render you storeless, due to the large number of
payouts ETs would be forcing you to make for unfair dismissal.
People make mistakes. It is part of being human. If you dismiss people
for being human, you will not find ETs very sympathetic.
>If you dropped the label without noticing, then you're being careless.
>It is YOUR job to take care! The store is paying you to behave
>properly and take every precaution to do the job you're paid to do -
>which in this instance is affixing price labels to shelves. Hardly
>rocket science, fot God's sake!
>
>>In order to be sure this has not happened, you would need a second
>>person going around with a list of all the changed prices, making sure
>>that the new prices were all there.
>
>No, you do NOT need a second person, for, based on that argument, who
>would check the second person? You gonna send around a third person? A
>fourth?
No, because after the second, you reach a point of diminishing
returns.
They don't bother using a second person, because mistakes in shelf
pricing are not life threatening, or even usually business
threatening.
This is however, the main reason why commercial airliners are not
allowed to fly with only one pilot.
In spite of their very high levels of training, intelligence and
skill, even airline pilots make mistakes. Having a second one present
reduces the chances of a mistake going unnoticed until too late by an
order of magnitude.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Shotgun wedding: a case of wife or death.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |