Technology Increases Work for Cashiers

LETTER RE: AI SUGGESTED FIVE HORRIBLE TITLES

Because I work in technology and specifically in the arenas of Point of Sale (POS) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software, I can speak to your example of the cashier at The Gap.

So, adding to Kathryn's comment about there being no difference in fundamental qualifications for the point-of-sale actions — ringing up customers, taking their money, putting stuff in bags — CRM technology actually increases the burden on cashiers in a few ways. First, companies gather a lot more information on customers. So, the cashier is tasked with using that data to upsell or even to personalize the experience. Second, the cashier is often responsible for tracking their own metrics. They have to check certain boxes, answer questions, etc., at key points in the transaction. They have to ask questions and enter those answers into the system. Third, the cashier is not relied on to do the work properly, so the system is designed to prompt the cashier sometimes to the point of asking them to literally read a script.

CRM can be a useful tool for employers and staff; however, it’s often not implemented with that intent. Underlying this is the increasing contempt employers have for the people they hire as cashiers. They may call them '“associates” now, but that's simply a brand's attempt to show value to the customer. But by prompting nearly every action the cashier makes, to literally both do data collection and self-monitoring, these systems increase the time of the transaction, make it feel less personal for the customer, and often create an incentive for the employee to undermine the data collection (by giving rote responses, clicking through, prompts, etc.) in order to take care of the customer and meet the transaction time limits imposed.

Employers with this mindset don't believe the employee will do the work unless it is scripted, and because they also don't want to hire sufficiently to manage the employees’ performance through timely feedback, they rely on “automation tools.” But the employer’s behavior belies the fact that they don't see these technologies as tools for the employee to use to improve service quality, but instead as governors of employee behavior.

I see AI being thought of the same way. It's spoken of in the industry as another kind of control to script the employee’s behavior. But one with the additional advantage that no manager needs to wrestle with the real-world application or how that changes the experience for the customers and staff.

Kevin Troy Darling
Phoenix, Arizona
April 22, 2025