Do supermarket self-scanners cost jobs?

[notenoughsocks]

Hello all.
Was going to post this in AIBU, but thought I would probably get a more helpful response over here.

I am finding it increasingly difficult to avoid using the self-scan machines at supermarkets. I hate, hate, hate using them becuase I have always assumed that they take jobs from real people.
However I can't seem to get a straight answer on this from the till-workers I ask about it. They all definatley hate the machines and half-imply that they are costing jobs. But more so, they seem to hate working with the machines. They all say that they find it much more stressful to over-see eight machines (which seems to be the standard) than to work at the one till. I assume they get no more money for this either and suspect that over time, their wages might even be driven down because the of the removal of their jobs.

I have come across some counter-arguments suggesting that their is no net job loss as this move is creating more hi-tech, better paying jobs in those areas that create the self-scan machines. But, even if I was to let myself belive this, I would still think that it is 'women's' jobs that are being taken away and replaced by the sort of jobs that men are more likely to get.

Any solid information would be gratefully recieved (I have a slowly forming idea of a sticker campaign or something like it).

I hate using them.

Back in the mists of time I had a saturday job in a supermarket. I managed to destroy one regular till by computer-non-savvyness.

EVERY time I use the self scan ones it screws up. They're never set up to use your own bags, there's nowhere to rest your other shopping/handbag or the weight thing gets crotchety, and if you buy alcohol/anything with an age limit it stuffs up until you get the staff member and won't let you carry on with other stuff in the meantime.

Really not worth the effort. Always takes much longer IMHO. (but then again I was always pretty good at the quick scanning bit)