Category Archives: Labor Economics

In-Store Fulfillment is No Defense Against Amazon

A very good article from MIT details why having workers pick customer orders for them for in-store delivery of online orders is a flawed strategy.

I can see why by putting my last visit to CVS in that context.   We went to get some cotton balls, peroxide, and hair spray.  Assume we had ordered it online.  And pretend I’m not me, but instead a store employee picking the order.  I go to the first aid section; there are six different kinds of cotton balls, and it isn’t possible to tell them apart from the labeling on the packages.  Some are clearly intended to be identical, but they are in different packaging and imprints, and the different sizes are all mixed up. And they are stored in two different places in the store!  I wander around for five minutes checking them out, then ask a clerk, who tells me about the two stock points. After another five minutes I have my package.

Next I look for the peroxide.  There are two brands, one a CVS private label, and other a named brand. The private label one is nominally cheaper, but the name brand one is almost the same price.  But… the named brand one can be bought cheaper with an in-store coupon, which cannot be used for online.  So I pick the private label brand.

Finally the hair spray.  There are myriad hair spray products but they are stored using vendor managed inventory in manufacturer specific displays.  The one ordered is mixed in with ten different varieties all with similar labeling but minor characteristic differences.  On the way there I find one that is very similar to the one I ordered, and would be suitable, but is half price on an in store special.  If I were me, I would buy it now. but I am picking on behalf of the customer.  Do I pick the cheaper one, and tell the customer that this one would be just as good and is half price? Do I continue to get the one she ordered without any disclosure of a better priced item that might work?  Do I have any disclosure requirement either online or in the store?

Done picking, I go to checkout counter (or kiosk) to ring up and deposit my items in the private locker, where it waits for me as customer.   I have spent fifteen minutes picking; that lets me pick about 32 orders in a shift of 8 hours (no breaks).  If the average order is $30, I have abetted about $960 of business. Assuming half is operating margin, about $480 is left. My salary at $15 an hour (minimum wage) is $120, If I get benefits of 33% (typical in CA) that goes to $160. There is $320 left be credited against other costs and take my profit.   Can I cover all my transportation, stocking, building expenses, and overhead etc with this much?  If I need 5% profit at the store level, that’s $48 on its own, leaving less than $300 out of $960. That’s about 31.25%

(EBITDA for CVS, quarter ending 3/31/2016 was $2,176m and total revenue was $43,215m, or 5.03%; from Yahoo finance figures we cannot disentangle retail from the Caremark drug insurance business; net income was $1,147m or about half the EBITDA).

Operating expenses are currently about 2/3 of gross profit (4568m/6744m, source CVS Interactive analyst center ) , leaving 33%.  My omnichannel experience would be a drag on the store. I think that’s the point of the MIT article.

Somehow retailers are going to have to discover how the omnichannel operation can be streamlined in the store to reduce expenses considerably. It’s certainly possible with improved technology, willing trained workers, and close attention to operations changes to support it.  but it’s going to be a long fight, with many pitfalls along the way.

Source: In-Store Fulfillment is No Defense Against Amazon

Truckers can be Self-Driving Freight Haulers

Retrofitting automobiles has always been a cost effective way to modify your vehicle.  This new firm (very well funded, however!) plans to make add-on self-driving kits for Class 8 trucks.   I think this is a very realistic thing to do, since semis have very long lifetimes in service.

Former employees of Google, Apple, Tesla, Cruise Automation, and others – 40 people in total – have formed a new San Francisco-based company called Otto with the goal of turning commercial trucks into self-driving freight haulers.

Source: Turning Truckers into Self-Driving Freight Haulers – Supply Chain 24/7

We have plenty of evidence of long truck lifetimes from the Clean Trucks program at the Ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach.  Emissions retrofit kits were required since so many drayage truckers were driving vehicles earlier than 2007, and had no means of affording a later model one with a less polluting engine.  Failure to understand this gave rise to a prolonged dispute between the San Pedro Bay ports and truckers, leading to a Supreme Court case.  The fight was not over pollution control; everyone wanted that.  It was about whether the ports could compel drivers to be employees of large firms who would be more likely to afford the newer trucks.  Most drayage drivers in the US are independent owner-operators who own their own truck; they work on piece rates and are usually cheaper than the mostly unionized larger drayage firms.

It is a classic example of unintended consequences of regulations and attempts to comply with them.  It wasn’t the CARB (California Air Resources Board) rule on pollution that was the culprit.  It was the details of the port’s reaction.

Some other posts from the same source about self-driving vehicles (the first has a report download):

The question is no longer “if” but rather “when” autonomous vehicles will appear on our streets and highways and DHL is ready to take a front seat on this journey.

Source: Self-Driving Vehicles in Logistics – Supply Chain 24/7 Paper

The Nikola Motor Company has emerged from a state of being unknown to unveiling plans for the first-ever 2000 horsepower (HP) electric class 8 semi-truck, called the Nikola One (named after Nikola Tesla).

Source: Nikola Motor Company Wants To Be the Tesla of the ‘Big Rig’ Trucking Industry – Supply Chain 24/7

Disruption — a Bite Out of Logistics Jobs?

This article republished from UPS makes a case that logistics jobs will actually increase as new disruptive, labor saving technologies enter the supply chain.  Another important point is that it is 3PLs where the growth will be, not in the traditional material movement and storage fields, though those may grow.

I agree with the premise in general.  but it is important to note that different skills will be needed, so there may be some anxieties unless people decide to retrain themselves to be in a position to benefit from the changes.  In general that means learn about information systems and the technologies involved.  Most of the jobs will be in implementing and keeping running the new technologies, and in coaching users and customers to make the best of them.

A 3PL is often just an information hub at root, that consolidates and makes available the information required for shippers, carriers and customers to interact.  Most of the jobs there look like pure service jobs. Often they involve a knowledge of technology and excellent customer service or sales skills.

 

Rather than eliminating jobs, it’s far more likely that technologies and trends like 3D printing and crowdsourcing will have a positive impact on logistics and supply chain jobs.

Source: Will Disruption Take a Bite Out of Logistics Jobs? – Supply Chain 24/7