The future "drives" of mass distribution?

[sen-no-sen]

Laure B., 27, ex-handler at E. Leclerc ... [/ url]

And what was she hoping for, Laure?

That we give him € 6000 to sit on a terrace drinking cold tea?

Was it his first work experience?

Did she discover that real life was not what she had learned about Fessebouc?


A little serious, please ...

Is this irony?

I think that the editor of this article was simply hoping for a job that respects a minimum human dignity in a society which advocates all the time the notion of "equality"!


The concept of "drive" speaks volumes about the current economic system.
It is based on the tacit agreement of the populations due to its practical aspect (the "effortless" mode) and its pseudo-humanist arguments (: the mother of a family who wins time to take care of her kids), see ecological (!) "smaller" reception car parks etc ...
Yet behind its concepts is always the logic of Taylorization of work pushed by the search for exponential economic growth.

The technocrats of mass distribution wanting to adapt to the NICTs are engulfed in a questionable market logic.
Indeed the sevice drive is free, and despite the fact that the employees are paying close to the daisies, the profitability is struggling to show its nose.
The solution will therefore be as follows:
1) -Either charge for the service.
2) -Either increase the pressure on the staff (it should be remembered that the CDI is gradually giving way to the concept of flexicurity).

This will result in:
In case n ° 1: drives are attractive because free, if the service becomes chargeable, many people will disown the concept which could lead to the closure of its warehouses, with unemployment as a result ...
In case n ° 2: depressions, suicides, lowering of the working world ...
There remains one "solution" n ° 3: the automation of the concept ... no comment!

[tomgey]

Drives are not more free than hypers: on the assumption that the products sold are at the same price, the margin which allows hypers to pay personal, premises, routing ... etc is enough for them to operate a drive .
I would even tend to say that the drive is possibly more profitable because the staff and local charges (no shelving costs for example) are less important. I have not been checked however.

My partner and I are regular users of the drive. It has even become our main mode of supply, excluding fresh produce, and we only set foot in hyper once or twice a month.
For fresh products, we go to: the village butcher for meat (more expensive but we have reduced our consumption: less but better!) And producers in neighboring villages for fruit and vegetables.

Advantages: time saving as has been said. We spend the evening there after work (the hyper + drive is on the road) or during another trip (drop off the children at their activities, race in town). In this we gain CO2 because previously races were often the subject of a trip exclusively for this purpose. But it is true that the calculation can quickly become complex.
Making your choice at home pushes less consumption: assuming that we buy the same thing almost all the time, we take the list of the 50 products we order the most or we make favorites, and it takes 10 minutes.
Regarding the CO2 generated by IT, at the customer level it is irrelevant because the computer or the tablet is already there. It is just an additional use. On the other hand, the brands have invested in servers that run 24 hours a day, which can indeed be a problem.

On the social side, these are indeed low-skilled jobs with clearly a risk of abuse like what is done in online sales (I am thinking of the warehouses of a famous online "bookseller"). But, some would say, neither more nor less than in hypermarkets where the staff is also under pressure. In short, if we push the reasoning to the end we must not only boycott drives but also hypermarkets and fall back on independent grocery stores. Not really realistic ...

I stop there so as not to be too long!

[plasmanu]

Going back to my job.
I am home service. And there is drive \ store.

The cost of a store (location.personnel.conso elec) amounts to 20% of turnover.
The drive is a plus of the store. therefore in the end has no cost since it is grafted on to the store.
Unfortunately I do not know the turnover of the store.

Home service: it is a cold room, warehouse, truck, staff, conso elec.

At identical price. The break-even point is € 1800 a day.
We pay on the same 20%. In the end it is the same except that the store employs 3 people and the deposit 18 people (better paid than in the store except the secretaries).

On the other hand: that with us we do not have the margin policy.
Besides, she is unknown.
It's the politics of numbers.
If I could sell with 95% discount as long as my figure is higher I earn more.
Not the box. It sucks but it's like that.

[Did67]

We cannot blame the "drive" for what we accept in the "system" in many places: factories (but it is true that the social problem was solved by transferring to China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc ... ), "call-centers", delivery people, etc, etc ...

The "economic model" seems to me to be based more on savings at the "hangar / surface / storage" level against "ERP / decoration / shelving + cashiers" than on more drastic "social standards" on the drive side than on the side of the hyper classic. Here too, the contracts are not frivolous, the partial hours (the number of checkouts varies according to the need), chopped hours with a large break (not paid, not long enough to come in, too long to do something ... ) ...

So yes, we are in a hard society. Sometimes brutal. Deadly for some ...

There were cashier strikes in various hypermarkets a few years ago; what Laure described, in one form or another, a cashier can write! Today there are some at Amzaon in Germany. I'm talking about a strike.

Basically, it seems the same to me.

What is certain is that the brands all want to place themselves in this market of "people in a hurry" and "always connected". In this sense, it is a reflection of society and of our lives. For me: no more, no less! "Business as usual! Just up to date"

[sen-no-sen]

Drives are not more free than hypers: on the assumption that the products sold are at the same price, the margin which allows hypers to pay personal, premises, routing ... etc is enough for them to operate a drive .

The concept of "drive" is based on a service: you make your choices on the internet and an operator gather your consumption products in your place and charge them in your vehicle.
This service is currently free.

It appears after study that this sector is far from being as profitable as it seems:

"With the Drive, you don't make money". The report is signed by Georges Plassat, CEO of the Carrefour group. However, the chain has nearly 200 points of sale and a dedicated website. But now, the Drives are extremely expensive in terms of logistics and personnel.

http://www.bfmtv.com/economie/grande-distribution-declin-drive-466074.html

More expensive to operate than it looks

Of course, the drive saves on certain personnel costs (no checkout lines) and on layout (shelves, decoration, etc.) but, even with good organization, an order preparation takes at least twenty at thirty minutes. Or around 10 euros per trolley (half an hour of minimum wage including charges). This is not negligible: it can represent more than 10% of the price of an average basket (from 90 to 120 euros depending on the brands) and this service is not billed to the customer.

http://www.capital.fr/enquetes/strategie/le-drive-un-cadeau-empoisonne-pour-la-grande-distribution-814745/%28offset%29/2

[tomgey]

OK, I bow!

So in fact all the big box stores are in the process of opening them not because it is profitable but so as not to lose market share if I reason correctly, right?
Suddenly if ever drives gain momentum to the detriment of "classics", there is a risk of witnessing a kind of rebalancing.

[BobFuck]

Of course, the drive saves on certain personnel costs (no checkout lines) and on layout (shelves, decoration, etc.) but, even with good organization, an order preparation takes at least twenty at thirty minutes. Or around 10 euros per trolley (half an hour of minimum wage including charges).

So, we come back to the recurring problem that a smicard costs 20 € an hour per box, to ultimately have 7.39 net in his pocket ...

[roy1361]

Coincidence: Here is an article published in "Le Matin Dimanche" of today, concerning "drives" in Switzerland:

[Ahmed]

Bob wrote:

So, we come back to the recurring problem that a smicard costs 20 € an hour per box, to ultimately have 7.39 net in his pocket ...

It is an inaccurate presentation of reality which assimilates, as too often, the "charges" to simple costs, whereas they represent, for the most part, an indirect income of the employee.

[BobFuck]

It is an inaccurate presentation of reality which assimilates, as too often, the "charges" to simple costs, whereas they represent, for the most part, an indirect income of the employee.

You mean contributions for the social security which does not reimburse much, and contributions for a retirement in which the employee in question will only receive a very small part of what he had been promised, possibly, if possible, and in 50 years ?

In the cost of a smicard we must also add the cost of accountants and others, paid to navigate between the reefs of the French administration (ie, money screwed up in the air), etc.