on 11/8/04 4:29 AM, Piers Hemy at piers@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Your belief that cash may be cheaper for the merchant may be mistaken. It
> is _my_ belief that banks charge merchants for cash handling services, and I
> have personal experience of the effort required to count the stuff - let
> alone hold it securely.
>
> --
> Piers
When I worked in retail during college, I know that the store paid a fee to
the bank for change (e.g. $500 in rolls of quarters) that was supposedly
related to the counting and rolling costs. I don't know if they were charged
for singles or fives as well, but we were net 'buyers' for those
denominations as well as all the change. The store did about $250k/week of
sales, and we probably went through a couple thousand in change during a
week as well... I used to see the armored car guy wheel in a little cart
with $2000 in quarters, $500 in dimes, $300 in nickels, etc. and more during
the holiday shopping season.
Its my opinion that stores likely should prefer the use of credit or debit
cards now with electronic authorization, as the rigamarole associated with
accepting a check slows down the checkout process while the cashier
evaluates the proferred ID's, scribbles the ID numbers down, and imprints
the check. Cash is still accepted most places, and is probably as fast but
no faster than the debit card (which also usually has the buyer doing all
the 'work' of swiping the card, keying the PIN, etc.) Take off 15-30 seconds
out of 100-200 customers a day and you add a lot of productivity to your
labor.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|