Banks Passing Their Customers On To The Post Office

1jim

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Cashiers have far more to do than pay peoples' bills and do small withdrawals, I can assure you. That argument doesn't fly.

It would be great if you could give us an idea of what things you find it acceptable for your customers to come into the branch and do.
Is there a certain amount you feel it is ok to withdraw?
What would be acceptable to do at the counter because it seems you object to allowing customers to perform almost any service that is offered.
If a customer wants to pay their bill over the counter and this service is allowed as part of the terms and conditions butt out! yes it may be quicker to use the machine, it may be quicker to pay on line and yes it is probably more profitable for the bank if everyone switched to direct debit but in fairness your bank makes money from its customers...hence the reason you and your colleagues are emplyed.

ShelfStacker_3

Inactive wrote: »

If a customer chooses to use any method provided by the bank, it surely isn't up to a cashier to make critical comment about a customer's choice, or am I missing something?

The customer often doesn't know that there IS another choice.

Also, sometimes, the customer's choice is inefficient for them and costs us money. Simple as.

Scousebird_2

Also, sometimes, the customer's choice is inefficient for them and costs us money. Simple as.

My, we are learning quickly dear-stop going on those Migration Meetings!! LOL!!

ShelfStacker_3

Scousebird wrote: »

My, we are learning quickly dear-stop going on those Migration Meetings!! LOL!!

I can assure you, it's not because of anything HSBC have been saying; I've always been in favour of things being more automated, even in my last job. My personal opinion, nothing more.

dunstonh

Banks seem that they dont want to deal with their customers.

Its probably worth noting that the ex building societies turned banks tend to still operate building society style when it comes to providing a counter service. If you want a full banking service then you typically only get that from one of the old school banks and not an ex building society.

Inactive

ShelfStacker wrote: »

The customer often doesn't know that there IS another choice.

Also, sometimes, the customer's choice is inefficient for them and costs us money. Simple as.

Who is this " us " that you refer to? It surely doesn't cost you anything personally, whatever a customer chooses to do, or not do.

I get the impression that customers are a bit of a nuisance to you, when in fact it is they that effectively pay your wages.

dunstonh

I get the impression that customers are a bit of a nuisance to you, when in fact it is they that effectively pay your wages.

Not likely. The cashier side of banking tends to be loss making.

Inactive

dunstonh wrote: »

Not likely. The cashier side of banking tends to be loss making.

So a High Street Bank can survive without providing a cashier service for their customers, I think not.:rolleyes:

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

So a High Street Bank can survive without providing a cashier service for their customers, I think not.:rolleyes:

Eventually, yes. Abbey, for instance, provides no cashier service to their business customers - and there's plenty enough of them.

As time goes by and thinks become "simpler" and more standardized, cashiers will become increasingly redundant. Bank Giro Credits are fading out in line with cheques - processed volumes through iPSL are down massively. Whilst iPSL doesn't do all clearing in the UK, it does the vast majority, so you can extrapolate out nicely.

Once that's gone, much of the bulk work will just be cash handling etc. when it comes to large transactions and such. Which will likely become rarer and rarer as other, safer payment options become available.

Did you know (of course you didn't) that Barclays Checkpoint - our software for checking on money laundering etc. - has picked up significantly fewer £5k+ cash withdrawals since Faster Payments came in? Not quite cut in half, but in the 30% range.

As as side note, the Midland Bank in my town, now of course HSBC, had 14 counter positions originally. They're now down to 2. Slowly but surely, away they go...

1jim

ShelfStacker wrote: »

the customer's choice is inefficient for them and costs us money. Simple as.

I wonder which is more important, the inefficiency for the customer or the cost to the bank! Banks do make money from us, they loose it in some areas providing customer services but make up for it elsewhere. They do seem to want to do away with the loss making areas (customer counter staff/cheques etc) and only concentrate on the money making areas. Customers are not stupid they will just move elsewhere!

What intrigues me is how some counter staff swallow the party line hook line and sinker into believing that customers dont need or want to use counter services and that if they can get customers to perform transactions in other ways the business will be more profitable and from this they seem to infer greater job security.......my take on this would be that when customers are disuaded from using the counter, the counter will close, when it closes the counter staff will be looking for work elsewhere.

To the people in the know..can you tell me how many staff work in the fully automated branches and compare this to how many staff worked in those branches before they became fully automated?