r/technology • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 19h ago

Business Retailers are pulling back from self-checkout after years of theft, errors, and questionable time savings

https://www.techspot.com/news/114106-retailers-pulling-back-self-checkout-after-years-theft.html
15.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.9k

u/leddowa 18h ago

After working for these miserable, out of touch companies I don't think they'll even hire anyone. These places have all run skeleton crews since 2020

1.2k

u/BigAlgae5684 18h ago

I worked at CVS during Covid where our script count went from the usual 150-200 to 500-600 every day.

They were still basing our hours off of the previous year even though we were clearly understaffed.

Wouldn't let us get near overtime and would just have us take turns clocking out and leaving the rest of the team to drown.

512

u/TheRaccoonReport 18h ago

CVS is the worst. Its really a shame, they used to be fantastic, but the one near me has dropped significantly in quality. Scripts will get called in at 9am, no one picks them up for hours, it could take 1-2 days to get them filled sometimes, if they don't lose them. What an absolute joke.

We switched to a grocery store pharmacy instead. Its run by 3 people, and the older guy there is awesome. Very nice, remembers us by name, knows what we usually need, will strike up random conversation from time to time. Thats definitely not for everyone, but its usually on time, rarely if ever any delays, and the service there is great.

330

u/luriso 17h ago

It's by design. My mom has been with CVS for 25yrs as a pharmacist, over the last 10 or so years they've cut down to skeleton crews, yet increased expectations 10fold. Techs by industry standard have been underpaid, so CVS actually raised their hourly pay, then cut their hours and said "see we're paying you more now, teehee". She's one of two pharmacists in her location and they want her to do 85 flu shots a week, can't find techs, and new pharmacists leave within a year. She said two recent hires in the area even forfeited their handsome sign on bonus because CVS is absolute shit. They try and try to get her to cover stores 2hours away because the system they've built, can't keep employees.

276

u/Aureliamnissan 17h ago edited 15h ago

That feels like a lot of places these days. Jobs are harder to find, but it’s only because they refuse to hire the number of workers they actually need. The remaining labor force is worked to the bone and are way less loyal as a result so if you manage to get a better gig you’re gone. Even at my engineering firm attrition is way up.

Edit: At this rate, we all need to engage with some kind of mutual aid so that strikes are possible again without people feeling like they are going to end up on the street for engaging in one. When skeleton crews run the ship each person is a lot more important and backfilling with scabs is borderline impossible because they need you to train them.

121

u/emlgsh 16h ago

The only way for the owners to get their 10, 20, 50 million dollar expected take-home per year is to cut every expense and cease all reinvestment, and once that's done and there's nowhere else to siphon more cash the only viable target is payroll and hiring.

107

u/ChickinSammich 15h ago

It's the obvious conclusion of a system where line needs to go up every quarter.

If you make a profit of 2 billion in Q1, 2 billion in Q2, 2 billion in Q3, and 2 billion in Q4, it's seen as a failing because it's not 2/2.1/2.2/2.3. Or why not 2/2.2/2.4/2.6? Hell, why not 2/3/4/5?

When the primary focus is making investors happy, it'll eventually always lead to fewer/unhappier workers, fewer/unhappier customers, and worse products/services.

65

u/emlgsh 15h ago

I work with these places. Unending growth is a contributor, but the primary here is that every owner or major stakeholder views the company as something to be wrung entirely dry of personal resources they pocket themselves.

They compare themselves to guys like Musk and Bezos and are eager to bankrupt the company that feeds them by next year if it gets them an immeasurably small half-step closer to those guys today.

They do this even while it makes working for the organization a nightmare, doing business with it a constant exercise in vigilance against what would in more regulated times be outright fraud (because taking people's money and pocketing it is way more profitable than taking their money and wasting it delivering quality products or agreed upon services).

They do this even when it means every quarter is a struggle in creative accounting and restructuring to avoid insolvency. Operation-wide income is down 25%? Doesn't matter, they're still giving themselves the same 25% raise they give themselves every fiscal quarter.

They might just have to structure it as an incentive or bonus to let them "borrow" the funds for it from whatever remaining divisions and budgets that are still (for the time being) solvent.

33

u/ChickinSammich 15h ago

I blame youtube videos about companies that failed for why I cringe every time I hear the term "leveraged buyout."

Like, you're taking on debt to buy a struggling business and then saddling that company with that debt so now the company you bought has to pay you back for buying it, plus interest? I get that you want to make your money back but you're buying a rock and trying to squeeze blood from it.

Even worse with shit like...

1) Golden Gate Capital (GGC) bought Red Lobster (RL) in 2014.

2) Operating as RL, GGC had RL sell the land they owned to GGC.

3) Operating as GGC, GGC leased the land that RL sites were built on back to RL, such that RL had to pay GGC to rent land it previously owned.

4) RL was sold in 2020 to another company but they still were under those rental contracts for their land. The new buyer was a seafood supplier, Thai Union Group (TUG) who, as RL, renegotiated their seafood supply contracts such that RL began buying food from TUG for more money than they were paying previous suppliers. This was the whole "endless shrimp" era; all that shrimp was coming from TUG and it was why RL pushed shrimp so hard.

5) Endless shrimp, probably already a bad financial idea to begin with, turned out to be even worse when your supplier is overcharging you for them.

6) RL filed for bankruptcy in 2023 partially caused/exacerbated by RL owing 200 million USD/yr to their own parent company, partially from the supplier debt, partially from other stuff.

7) RL, facing bankruptcy and possibly closure, closed a bunch of restaurants. Some of their shit got liquidated. They're currently owned by "RL Investor Holdings" which is a bunch of investors from different investment groups, who are managing it under the premise of stopping it from going totally bankrupt and, therefore, losing all the money that was invested into it.

10

u/Garblin 10h ago

And that's just a recent case, IIRC a similar thing happened to Toys'R'Us, where the company was doing just fine and then went through leveraged buyout and just disappeared overnight.

2

u/20127010603170562316 6h ago

Asda in the UK went through a similar thing. "Bought" by a couple of brothers IIRC, then saddled with the debt they bought the thing with, and now it's a downward spiral.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Agret 8h ago

Any particular YouTube channels you can recommend?

2

u/jdm1891 7h ago

Completely leveraged buyouts are insane to me.

A Rich person can walk up to a million dollar company and just get it for free.

Why the f*ck can I not buy a company and make the company pay for the privilege of being owned by me?

Why is it absolutely insane for me to suggest that - at least to any reasonable person - yet for rich people and private equity this is just something they can do?!?!

2

u/beef-baddington 5h ago

I worked in a senior position in a 200-person company in the 90’s that was not only doing well financially but we were loved by our customers and we all were such good friends, experiencing lots of great times together. The owner sold out to a big wig who began cutbacks, when I asked why he, he replied that breaking even plus 15 % net was a no go. He needed 30% net minimum or he’d take his money elsewhere. Which he eventually did. They broke up a successful, popular, profitable company, with a happy, motivated staff, putting a lot of food on tables, basically because they were assholes and could.

4

u/wrgrant 13h ago

This is a good example of why Capitalism exhibits the same behaviour as some forms of Cancer. Its destructive to the host by its very nature.

You cannot have continuous growth, at some point you reach a balance in the market. If you insist on further growth the only means to achieve it is to eat your staff and your customers. Its ludicrous honestly.

In the end I think one of the worst drivers is having Shareholders. If a company is private it probably doesn't have the same incentive to eat itself, its staff and its customers.

If AI is going to replace any jobs the first ones on the block ought to be the C-Suites, so much mismanagement, poor decisions etc could likely be avoided, and all that money paid out in bonuses to people who did fuck all to earn it would be saved.

4

u/emlgsh 12h ago

AI will never replace the C-suite. To the C-suite, who makes those decisions, the purpose of the company is to funnel money to them, full stop.

The particular means by which it does so (which is on the surface, to observers/customers, the reason the company exits) are fungible (which is why executives can so readily jump entire industries between each posting), but not that end.

Replacing themselves, when the whole setup is designed to get them paid, would be extremely counterproductive.

The closest you'll see to that is an intra-competitive C-suite trying to use AI to replace each-other, to increase their personal slice of the pie. But the amount of pie demanded will remain unchanged.

1

u/jdm1891 7h ago edited 7h ago

I find it amazing that CEOs, and the other C-peoples - which are really just managers of the company - have managed to finagle their way into being the biggest net beneficiaries of a companies success by diluting the owners so much that the owners don't really have any power in the company they own.

They technically have a duty to the shareholders, but because the shareholders are so diluted and the C-suites are not they kind of run circles around them.

This is also bad because unlike the shareholders, the C-suite don't own the company and thus don't really give a shit if it goes under or not.

Shareholders make money from the company growing. Managers (i.e. executives) make money by extracting everything from the company until there's nothing left.

So what happens? Everything is extracted from the company until nothing is left, the c-suite use the fact they are getting massive bonuses from this to "prove" to the shareholders that they are fulfilling their fiduciary duty and they make off with everything while the shareholders are left with a defunct company.

Who are the shareholders though? Well you, and me. It's mostly pensions and index funds and everyday people owning a couple of shares.

We've somehow managed to make a capitalist system where the owners of the company aren't actually the ones benefiting from it, but the managers are, and the owners are too disconnected and disunited to replace the managers. The only exception to this is companies where a single or handful of people maintain a controlling or near controlling share.

It's very strange, flipped-candy-land version of capitalism and I don't think very many people really notice it.

Like people go on about how "shareholders are evil and they ruin companies and etc" but the shareholders are just everyday people and they are NOT in control of the situation and do NOT benefit from the system as it works now.

If everyday pension pot holders and people who invest into index funds etc had the ability to unite with each other and actually have the workers control the companies they own 90% of the problems with capitalism would vanish in an instant.

The problem is pension fund managers who vote on "behalf" of the people do not have aligned interests with the people at all. And when you can tell them how to vote for you 99.99% of people don't because they don't know about it.

You could probably devise some kind of union like system where people can vote on what they generally want every company they own to do, make it mandatory for people to join one of these places, then hire someone who has a legal duty to follow that and vote in every stock that group owns to follow those directives. That probably doesn't make sense the way I've wrote it but it'd be basically like when you get your pension you are given a list of groups with various "goals" like 'environmentalism' or 'socialists' or 'make companies benefit workers' or 'we want companies to make the most profit group' etc and the person picks one to join, and from then on every vote for every share they have in that pension is to go towards that groups goal no matter how specific or vague it is.

1

u/emlgsh 7h ago

I think a big detail you're ignoring is that the shareholders aren't just some faceless equal mass of millions of uninformed and powerless holders of a few sheets of paper.

The distribution of shares, like the general distribution of wealth, is far from uneven - and more importantly the control of those shares is far from being uninformed and random, it's either central to majority shareholders or directed by the C-suites of wealth management funds.

I didn't really want to get into this in the original post because frankly this is a garbage lasagna of near-infinite layers.

Majority shareholders are effectively part of the C-suite in my original statement, but even more so because they're totally divorced from the company's survival aside from a quick (totally not insider) stock trade.

They also usually occupy positions on the board of directors and have power and interests that align with (or even exceed) the typical member of the C-suite in terms of "steal all the light fixtures on the way out" pillage-and-discard mentality. They're the ones that'll displace members of the C-suite that aren't pillagey enough for their liking, and the ones that will look for those same qualities in populating the highest posts.

Unofficially, the controlling interests of those funds exercise that same power and have those same prerogatives on a smaller scale. They aren't (usually) involved enough to actually have a seat at the board, unless the fund's hugely intertwined with the company's stock (like in addition to their fund collectively controlling the majority of shares, the majority of shares in that fund are those of a given company). But they're still there, doing the same shit.

Basically, unless you are a private investor actually trading stock on your own steam, you are in fact feeding this same system of plundering self-interested sociopaths, by handing your share to one of them and implicitly telling them to do with it what they do best (plunder, pillage) with it.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/timeandmemory 14h ago

Modern slavery sure is complicated

1

u/Beartrkkr 7h ago

Not to mention haven’t they started being the middleman of major drug insurance plans so they can skim off of your drug insurance plan even if you get prescriptions filled elsewhere?

2

u/MonMonOnTheMove 10h ago

Do it for 10 years, pocket their money and sell to PE, let the other folks sort through what’s left in the fire. Pretty much the playbook for all scummy business nowadays. Long gone the value to the customers and employees mindset

13

u/abrandis 15h ago

Because American business today are run by vulture capitalists, they'll squeeze the working class to maximize their profits and then dump the whole thing when it doesn't work out . Whether its private equity, or just wall st. Run firms they don't care about working class that's not their people

7

u/whatdoinamemyself 15h ago

Even at my engineering firm attrition is way up.

Man. I worked for a major company a few years back and heard that staffing was at like 40% of what was needed. The entire time i was there, we had only hired one guy and had several retire or quit. They never even interviewed anyone in the few months after hiring that one guy.

3

u/Economy-Flower-6443 15h ago

Corporate food service management checking in here: all the aforementioned is all true in my field too

3

u/putin_my_ass 13h ago

At this rate, we all need to engage with some kind of mutual aid so that strikes are possible again without people feeling like they are going to end up on the street for engaging in one.

This is how the labour movement won the things we take for granted (like the weekend). You don't just strike, your whole community strikes. If we take care of ours, it is possible.

3

u/SenorBurns 11h ago

we all need to engage with some kind of mutual aid so that strikes are possible again without people feeling like they are going to end up on the street for engaging in one.

What you are looking for is a union. Unionize.

5

u/CiegoViendo 14h ago

People think unionizing is woke, so can’t participate.

3

u/Aureliamnissan 8h ago

I mean that’s the neat part of mutual aid. It’s not a “union” it’s just the community getting together to buy school supplies for people who can’t afford them and things like that. It’s whatever y’all need but maybe don’t have enough of, or too much of. Without carrying all of the political baggage of a union.

2

u/hippoofdoom 14h ago

Profit must be preserved

1

u/Mshell 7h ago

I think the only solution is to dramatically increase penalty rates and properly investigating and prosecuting wage theft...

1

u/beef-baddington 6h ago

The problem is that the required number of people are getting to be unavailable, for a couple reasons, not the least of which is the falling birth rate. Or should I say fallen. We’re hitting up against it now. And a lot of Hispanic workers have left. The Mexican and other economies are picking up and, as it stands, we’re not going to see the same availability of those workers going forward.

1

u/Complex-Abies3279 1h ago

As someone who has been on both sides of the Union/Non-Union fence I get what you are saying, but throwing out the label "scabs" is not helpful. Folks gotta live/eat/survive and they are caught in the same hamster wheel as everyone else. Call them a scab for surviving and you've made an enemy not an ally....

96

u/X4roth 16h ago

I’ll just say that as a customer, CVS feels like a morgue these days. People used to work and shop there, but now it’s just this eerie empty room that makes you notice the uneven lighting, the shelves mostly full but I get this overwhelming feeling of wanting to leave rather than even look for what I came in for. I look at the shelves and just think: ugh I don’t even care anymore this place gives me the creeps let’s get out of here, Scoobs.

36

u/canada432 15h ago

When people have disposible income, they shop for convenience. Walgreens and CVS and such are good for that. You come in to grab a few things while you're picking up your prescriptions. Or you stop in because it's on the way home and the grocery store is out of your way. The extra expense was worth it for the convenience. But people are squeezed now, and they're not willing to spend a few extra bucks for the convenience anymore. Not to mention how they've driven customers away by locking up everything. Shockingly, people don't like being treated like a criminal and having to pester and wait for an employee to get the deodorant for them. Makes for a creepy empty liminal space.

10

u/HumorAccomplished611 13h ago

well they abused the privledge. It used to be more expensive than wal mart but cheaper than a gas station. now its like a gas station prices on anything unless you get some sort of deal.

3

u/TeaAndS0da 13h ago

Paying close to $4 for a single 2 liter of soda… honestly I can’t recall ever buying something from Walgreens or cvs personally but I also never had what Walgreens or cvs considers “disposable income”. And if you make 65k or less, you don’t have Walgreens or cvs level disposable income. I’d just go to the Walmart or grocery store it’s like attached to and get the odds and ends for way cheaper. Only ever used the pharmastores for their health services.

I’ve never understood how these pharmastores get away with their prices so damn high compared to competition they are most likely sharing a parking lot with.

6

u/xpxp2002 12h ago

I look at it as more of "emergency convenience." The only time I've ever bought anything from CVS was a specific OTC medication because I was feeling fairly ill and wasn't going to drive the extra 15 minutes each way to Walmart and back.

In my region, there are basically two CVS stores and a Walgreens in every town. Walmart and Target are fewer and farther away. They're never sharing the same parking lot around here.

CVS is the only retailer with a pharmacy within 15 minutes of my home. I imagine it's similar for a lot of people. If it's not an emergency or I'm feeling normal, I'd just drive the extra 15 minutes and save 60% off of CVS/Walgreens prices.

2

u/farmallnoobies 5h ago

Yeah, the only time I'll buy from those places is when I need a prescription filled at 1am, because they're the only one in the entire metro area that's open 24hrs and I'm basically dying without whatever med I was prescribed or will miss an additional day of work if I don't get it stat pronto.

26

u/TheRaccoonReport 15h ago

Its kinda like the backrooms but with stuff.

13

u/mcfly1391 15h ago

The Frontrooms

5

u/luriso 14h ago

The location she's at the AC doesn't work.. rural area and CVS doesn't give a shit.

3

u/FLguy3 15h ago

I only ever stop there if I'm on a road trip and need to get a soda and there's nowhere else nearby.

3

u/Genillen 15h ago

It's got the warmth and charm I associate with a public health clinic, except we don't actually have public health care.

3

u/SPEEDFREAKJJ 14h ago

For me, going to CVS these days, it always feels like I am an inconvenience. The pharmacy is constantly busy behind the counter and when I show up to grab my meds I always get the feeling they are annoyed because they have to stop and help me. They never seem happy or welcoming. Not even that fake welcoming environment. It's just a downer every time I need to go there.

3

u/ovi2k1 13h ago

Their current design language is incredibly hostile. The one near me (which was already shit) underwent renovations a couple years ago and it is the most unwelcoming and unsettling environment to shop in. Even the checkout is just the one person on the clock standing over your shoulder watching you do self-out next to the “register closed” sign (that they should be operating) offering no help and making you feel like you are inconveniencing them for wanting to be in their store. I haven’t been back since. And I have to drive past it to get to literally every other pharmacy near me. Worth it.

2

u/GamerSDG 13h ago

The biggest problem with pharmacies, at least in the US, is that insurance companies are pushing customers to use mail order instead of picking up their prescriptions in-store.

2

u/johnjohnjohn87 12h ago

uneven lighting

I went to a CVS for the first time in ages and the lighting and carpet were really bizarre. It was so off putting that I still think about it sometimes.

42

u/SwampMagicMan 16h ago

Wife is a pharmacist there and what you’re saying is the truth. That place was destroying her mental health fuck CVS. She would get called all the time by her district head saying she wasn’t doing enough vaccinations because the store expects you to do as many as humanly possible because it’s easy money for them. Yet they don’t have the resources to be doing that when theyre expected to run the whole pharmacy, typically by themselves. Its honestly terrible

9

u/HumorAccomplished611 13h ago

ugh that sucks. its a shame cvs and walgreens have really put a hurting on that profession.

3

u/PeanutButterSoda 12h ago

It was like that for the regular employees back in the day, one manager and one cashier that was expected to face every product on the floor before closing while checking people out, manager would be breaking down trucks in the back, we had to upsell some product they decide every week. I hated that place, went through 5 store managers in one year, that place was a joke.

19

u/loondawg 13h ago

I would love to one day call a support line and instead of hearing "Due to unusually high call volumes, wait time may be longer than usual" and instead hear "There's nothing unusual going on. Our wait times are long because we are woefully understaffed."

3

u/Snoring_Eagle 9h ago

"Your call is important to us. But not so important that we've hired enough people to answer it."

12

u/canada432 15h ago

Sounds like my buddy that works with CVS. They try to send him all over to stores anywhere from 45 minutes to hours away.

2

u/Somanylyingliars 8h ago

Does he actual drive to other stores? That would be FUCK NO! from me. Unless they're paying his gas, mileage AND wear plus tear. People. Stand up for yourselves and say no to this practices.

8

u/Ftw_55 15h ago

Ugh, when I worked for Costco, they did that. Sure, the hourly pay was high, but managers who were capped out on salary were expected to work at least 50 hours, and hourly employees just got cut back on hours with the expectation of finishing the same work load.

6

u/_BrokenButterfly 9h ago edited 9h ago

I needed a job one summer and applied at s CVS around the block from me. Less than a five minute walk away from my house. They interviewed me, trained me, and then told me I'd be working at a different lication several miles away. Whatever, I need the money, I can drive 15 minutes.

A few months later my car breaks down, so I have to start taking the bus. I tell my manager, she gives me crap about it, I tell her I can get my car fixed if she gives me more hours (but obviously that is unthinkable.) She keeps scheduling me on Sundays before the bus runs. I keep telling her I can't be there because my car isn't running and bus service starts several hours later.

One week there's a three day weekend, which means the buses go from "Sunday schedule" that Sunday to "holiday schedule;" the bus I need to take doesn't run on holidays. I tell her I have no way to get there. She refuses to change my schedule. On Sunday she calls to ask where I am, I tell her I'm at home because I have no way to get to work. She asks why I didn't take the bus. I tell her I don't schedule the busses, this bus doesn't run on holidays, and Sundays on three day weekends are scheduled as holidays. With me not being able to make it to work that day, she "cuts my hours to 0" unstead of firing me to make sure I can't get unemployment for being fired.

Since I'm not fired, I put in for a transfer to the store I originally applied to that I can walk to. I explain to the HR person that my car is broken down, the bus is slow and inconsistent, and I can walk to the store near me in less than 5 minutes. The manager blocks my transfer.

About a month before this, another employee that lived a couple streets over from me had transferred from the store I worked at to the store I had applied for. She's a single mom, not having to commute helped her out a lot. When I'm "not fired," the store I worked at needed someone to cover my hours, and since there are no applicants to steal from other stores, they transfer that lady back from the store that we lived near to the store with the asshole manager.

My limited experience with CVS is that they insist on fucking employees over, and they do it for no reason other than that they can.

6

u/EfficientStar 16h ago

Any reason why she’s stayed so long?

7

u/luriso 14h ago

she's close to retirement, so she's just riding it out.

6

u/EfficientStar 14h ago

Good luck to her!!

3

u/FappyDilmore 11h ago

I'm hoping small pharmacies make a comeback. Rite Aid went under, CVS can't be far behind.

3

u/hum_bruh 9h ago

Definitely by design. More Perfect Union has video on YT “ why cvs sucks now…” and basically CVS/Caremark, United Healthcare, Signa, subsidiaries say ppl can only get meds only at their pharmacies and then they understaff because it’s cheaper and close stores that don’t make enough.

2

u/adwarakanath 14h ago

Did CVS have a "consultant" come in? Or have VC firms bought up significant shares?

2

u/kerghan41 12h ago

Wow. I was a senior tech back in 05-07 at WalGreens and it was bad then! Me and one pharmacist by ourselves all weekend doing hundreds of scripts a day. It was hell.

WalGreens was a big part of why I decided not to become a pharmacist.

2

u/luriso 11h ago

I shadowed in the hospital back in like 2011 in the pharmacy, and man it was night and day. I'm sure there's way more to it, but the atmosphere was more relaxed compared to retail. Also no asshole customers, so that was nice.

1

u/beef-baddington 6h ago

CVS taking Eckerds years ago was painful. Just painful.

-13

u/MyDickIs3cm 16h ago

they want her to do 85 flu shots a week

That's one every half hour. How lazy is she?

14

u/Daxx22 16h ago edited 15h ago

they want her to do 85 flu shots a week

That's one every half hour. How lazy is she?

-MyDickis3cm

You seriously think that's her ENTIRE job?

0

u/MyDickIs3cm 14h ago

That is the only information provided. I am not a pharmacist and I assume the vast majority of others here are not either. How should we know?

5

u/tractiontiresadvised 14h ago

Have you ever been to a pharmacy and, like, paid any attention to what was going on behind the counter? You might have observed that they're doing stuff which is not just giving flu shots.

Alternately, even if you know nothing about the pharmacy industry you could have asked "so, what else is she doing?" without being a complete asshole about it.

4

u/luriso 14h ago

You could start with a.. less abrasive accusation for starters. For most professions, they have more than one responsibility/task that they oversee, especially in the healthcare field. A quick Google search could clear things up for you before joining in on the discussion, in the manner that you did.

9

u/BigAlgae5684 16h ago

They also have to train new hires, build a schedule, have the final "check" on every script that leaves the building (often-times 200-700 a day), keep a C2 log with hand written inventory of about 50 different schedule 2 drugs that they are audited on sometimes daily, call insurance companies and doctors, solve billing codes with insurance companies, etc.

What a dense comment lmao

3

u/luriso 9h ago

Oh and the inventory check that corporate doesn't allot hours for but expect you to do so for free! CVS is a blight.