The actual banking day in hours

ShelfStacker_3

Tabatha_Kitten wrote: »

Exactly. I wouldnt go into the bank looking for the cashier if I wanted a new account, foreign exchange, or a loan.

Like I say, cashiers can be retrained, and they're not cashiers after that, are they?

There is now therefore, a reduced need for a cashier position in that bank.

However, there is a continued need for a customer service position, which the person who was a cashier can fill.

ldavies_3

I agree with shelfstacker on this one.

Remember the time when there were 10 cashier position?? peoples banking habits have changed and will continue to evolve.

A DD is a planned transaction agreed with the customer and the company so there should never be an issue of a surprise DD.

The DD usually are released at 12.01 on the due date therefor it is not unreasonable for the bank to expect cleared funds to be available.

A missed or bounced payment is seen as a sign of financial difficulty and any organisation who does not react to this is irresponsible.

Tabatha_Kitten

Thank you Shelfstacker, I agree, there is still a need for customer service- thats why I still go into my branch.
I can log on to the internet to pay my bills/change my standing orders.
I can speak to to call centre in some far flung corner of this earth if I have a query/want to arrange a loan.
Next they will be wanting me to send my cheque/cash deposits direct to the 'outsourced company's' who process them instead of my branch to save someone having to empty the machine at the end of the working day.
Might save the humble cashier getting up for work in the morning but I still want to receive some sort of 'customer service' from my bank. Even if it is just smile and hello that they dont really mean.

SparciaM

I have to say, one of the reasons I left HSBC (a minor one amongst some major ones), was the fact that they closed all manchester city centre branches down to open one super machine one. There is no-one to actually to speak to about queries. I had a queiry once and was walked to a telephone to speak to India. In the branch is 4 people saying hello, how can we help and then walking you to a telephone, a computer touchscreen or a paying in/paying out machine.
Even when I went to close my account down, I had to ring India on the phone, confirm confirmation and then go to the 'greeter' to give my bank stuff in, to phone India again to confirm this. Ridiculous.
As this is the only branch in the city centre, you can be queuing for upto 15/20 mins to use a machine as they only have 5 of each and they are breaking down, 'greeters' are needed to actually do the deposit - which if there was counter service would actually have been quicker. Also, the machines don't update in realtime, they said their machines update around 3pm, so money paid in, is never instantly available.
Now with Lloyds whom I moved to, they have machines and counter - a perfect balance for all and they have someone walking down the queue and if they can use the machine they walk them over to get the queue down.

ShelfStacker_3

That's bloody weird. First of all, counsellors should be a given - cashiers, not so much, but to deal with what could be complex queries, a counsellor should be available. Also, we have machines now which can take cash deposits and credit them immediately, so why they'd make a "super machine" branch and not include one of those escapes me. Personally, I wouldn't like that, either. Sometimes cash needs to go in straight away, and so there should be an option to do just that, be it a cashier or a machine.

ShelfStacker_3

sofa_surfer wrote: »

Maybe because watching too many times Terminator 1, 2 and 3 ?

The usual excuse given is "I don't trust it". Which given that cashiers can, and do, make frequent errors that a machine wouldn't, and that what the machine takes in is checked against what it says it has taken in (which cheques paid in over the counter aren't - lose one that way and it's lost until someone finds it) strikes me as slightly bizarre.

Some people just don't like change. You can talk until you're blue in the face about how it'd be less effort if they paid their bills by Direct Debit than by cash (which is a pain in the sack), or how paying your credit card off through the ATM is quicker and more convenient, or how the cheque machine can give you a full receipt with photocopies of the cheques (actual tangible proof, rather than just a poorly inked stamp on a tatty book) but some people just don't want to listen, and they hold things up for pretty much everyone else. They're stuck in their mindset that the machine will eat them and lose all their money, and nothing will make them budge.

Tabatha_Kitten

SparciaM wrote: »

I have to say, one of the reasons I left HSBC (a minor one amongst some major ones), was the fact that they closed all manchester city centre branches down to open one super machine one. There is no-one to actually to speak to about queries. I had a queiry once and was walked to a telephone to speak to India. In the branch is 4 people saying hello, how can we help and then walking you to a telephone, a computer touchscreen or a paying in/paying out machine.
Even when I went to close my account down, I had to ring India on the phone, confirm confirmation and then go to the 'greeter' to give my bank stuff in, to phone India again to confirm this. Ridiculous.
As this is the only branch in the city centre, you can be queuing for upto 15/20 mins to use a machine as they only have 5 of each and they are breaking down, 'greeters' are needed to actually do the deposit - which if there was counter service would actually have been quicker. Also, the machines don't update in realtime, they said their machines update around 3pm, so money paid in, is never instantly available.
Now with Lloyds whom I moved to, they have machines and counter - a perfect balance for all and they have someone walking down the queue and if they can use the machine they walk them over to get the queue down.

This is sounding very much like my recent experience, hence my feeling a need for a rant.

Doozergirl

ShelfStacker wrote: »

I'll say it again though; nice smile or not, it's insane to waste 5 or 10 minutes of your time in a queue to pay in a cheque or get money out or something when you could use a machine in a few seconds and be done, and I really, really can't see the point in wasting your time just so you get a few warm fuzzies and feel important because you're getting "service".

It's not insane. Customers are all different and deserve to be treated that way. I'm amazed you put "service" in speech marks as if it's something that doesn't exist! The reason that cashiers are replaced by machines is for cost savings. What customers really want is to be treated like a human being - especially if they have stepped foot into the branch in the first place - many of them are there because that is how they choose to do their banking.

You're talking yourself out of a job. While it's fine to take the stance of efficiency for the customer, the real reason is cost efficiency for the business. 2009 is going to be a tough year for growth. Creditor insurance is an important income stream which is potentially going to be struck down next year and lending opportunities are also down. If they can't get their growth through income streams, they'll find it in cost savings. They already are.

Customers want "service". They get it in business banking because they're deemed worth it financially for the bank. Someone is able to make a common sense decision personally on whether to honour payments. You'd have to pay better money to staff, or employ more to take that level of responsibilty on personal accounts. And hey, why pay out more on keeping people in jobs when you've got a machine! It isn't a question of the customer being insane to stand in a queue, the customer isn't profitable enough for the bank to want to take that approach. It is good for profit to operate a machine because filling and emptying machines takes a lot less manpower than serving customers all day.

No one wants to spend 5-10 minutes in a queue but they will happily wait one minute for a smile and a hello from a friendly face provided by a bank that invests in enough staff to be able to provide that service.

What you say isn't wrong, it just isn't good for your future job security.

Lokolo

Yes because obvously business's would keep customers happy and create mass loss's from employment costs...... Thats obviously a sensible thing to do.

Less queues = good.
Machines = less queues.
Machines = good.

By all means I agree. I would love my HSBC to have 20 cashiers instead of machines, but it just means added costs.

My branch was redeveloped with accordance (is that sentence even grammatically correct?) to the machines. The branch is so much nicer now. So much more space. And funny thing is, theres more service desks where if you are openining an account or whatever, you wait 30min and you see someone. (yes 30minutes but I don't tend to go in day time). Where as my local Lloyds, funnily enough, has around 10 cashiers, no queues, but to see someone about your account is near to impossible.

And by all means - people want to see a smile or whatever, but if it means holding other people up who won't be smiling at you, is it really that nice of you? I think its more selfish than anything. But thats just my view and urgh I hate C++ damn assignments, making me stressed. I want my new HSBC card :mad: :rotfl:

Doozergirl

Lokolo wrote: »

Yes because obvously business's would keep customers happy and create mass loss's from employment costs...... Thats obviously a sensible thing to do.

That isn't what I said. If you can't credit me with intelligence, it really is rude to ridicule others less fortunate than yourself in the brain department

To clarify. Machines are good for profit. Staff are an expensive resource but jobs and livings are important to those individuals in those jobs. It's those customers that want the personal service that are keep bank cashiers in a job. It's ironic that a bank cashier finds these customers a bit of a waste of time