SACRAMENTO – In describing a high-profile state bill that would largely ban self-checkout lanes at grocery and drug stores, the radio station KSBY , “It’s all in an effort to combat theft.” A San Francisco Chronicle news story likewise echoed that preposterous description. In a headline, a Chronicle news story claims, “This California bill aims to stop theft at self-checkout lanes.” It then asks: “Why are stores against it?”
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe oppose having the Legislature dictate the specific ways they operate their stores for the same reason the Chronicle might oppose having lawmakers dictate its specific editing process. Retailers don’t enjoy the same protections from regulation as news operations, but lawmakers – many of whom have never worked outside of government or political activism – should stop dictating specific business practices.
And reporters need to apply more skepticism. , which moves to the floor after moving off of the Senate suspense file on Thursday, is absolutely not about helping stores battle retail theft. If stores believed that shutting self-checkout aisles would stop theft, they would, you know, just stop using self-checkout aisles. The state and local governments could help by actually prosecuting people who steal stuff, but stores are perfectly capable of reducing their own shrinkage problem.
This is about protecting union grocery jobs. And about slowing artificial intelligence to further protect union grocery jobs. Specifically, the legislation bans self-checkout stations unless the store includes a station where an employee oversees the self-checkout customers. That employee may oversee no more than two stations. The bill limits such lines to customers with 10 items or fewer. Customers could not use self-checkout to buy any items that were stored behind a locked counter.
Then there’s this amazing , which requires any such store “that develops, procures, uses, or otherwise implements artificial intelligence, automation, or any new or modified technology that significantly affects the essential job functions of its employees, eliminates jobs or functions, or that enables self-service by its customers to complete a worker and consumer impact assessment before implementing the technology.”
The Chronicle quoted Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, D-Los Angeles, who feigned at the pushback to her bill. “We’re hearing from them that (theft) is a challenge and a problem,” she said. Oh please. I find it maddening when lawmakers sidestep their real motivations and pretend something meddlesome and controversial is a common-sense measure that everyone can support.
Focus on the bill analysis. It wants to limit development of new AI technology that “affects the essential job functions of its employees.” The limitations imposed by the bill – only one worker for two self-checkout stations, a mandate to police the number of items a consumer takes into those lines, the creation of a detailed assessment about whether self-service reduces jobs – are far too cumbersome to make self-checkout stations worthwhile.
It’s a self-evidently cynical way to shut down these stations. Never mind the inconvenience to consumers who will face longer lines. The Legislature already has made grocery shopping more annoying than necessary, with its that slows the checkout process. It’s a sop to environmentalists and retailers (who get to charge for bags). Let’s at least stop pretending this new intrusion is about theft, when it’s a giveaway to unions.
Did I mention that Smallwood-Cuevas’ background is in union organizing? Her says she “spent two decades serving as an educator, labor organizer and community activist.” She formerly worked for SEIU Local 1877. For whatever her charms, this is not a lawmaker who, say, worked at the Chamber of Commerce and is seriously looking for policies to battle theft. She comes out of a world that’s focused on protecting union jobs. That’s the genesis of her anti-self-checkout idea.
If you still don’t believe me, here is what the senator the Chronicle in reference to the impact of artificial intelligence: “We already have a situation where our residents don’t earn enough to be able to provide basic needs; food, shelter and health care.” We also have a situation in California where retailers are in the face of higher mandated wages and an organized retail theft wave. The likely result of SB 1446 will be fewer stores and fewer jobs.
But even if it did save jobs, so what? One of the keys to success in life is to develop skills and find jobs providing products or services that people need or want. In other words, you can make good money doing work that’s in . Working at a grocery store or drug store is a fine and honorable job, but not if the job you hold there exists purely as a make-work position demanded by the Legislature.
But even those who support the legislation should stop with the deceptive description of it. It’s not about stopping retail theft and it’s glaringly obvious why retailers are .
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California ɫ̳ Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
