> This is probably for fear that an employee will impose their own
> criteria while the machines are calibrated for 'best fit'. You might
> have an employee who prefers a blue cast one day and another who
> likes a warm look the next. Customers would get inconsistent results,
> things would slow down and there would be increased expense in
> materials.
Not really, see below.
The whole basis of these corporations is to hire the dim
> at minimum wage and have them follow mechanical routines developed by
> those who know. Thinking about the job is dangerous.
> Think Mcdonalds (or is that Macdonalds or mcDonalds or whatever?) -
> it doesn't matter if it's crap so long as it's always exactly the
> same crap. They don't want people who can cook - just those who can
> take the fries out when the bell rings.
Worse, actually. They don't care what things look like, crap or not. They
want the work turned out the quickest, cheapest way possible, by someone
that is usually stocking shelves or sweeping floors. Here, the in-store
minilab is usually a loss-leader. If they get you in, you spend money on the
profitable stuff.
The sad thing is the new trend. If there's a lot of overnight work and not
much one hour work, and the girl has swept all the floors, stocked all the
nail polish, or taken in all the returns, the overnight work is taken away
for Qualex or whoever, and it's done in the instore lab. You thought you had
managed to circumvent the lousy machine run by the sixteen year old that is
maintained on a monthly schedule, and sent it where there were on site
technicians. OOPS!
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|