They hardly discount meat that expires the same day. I went in the Tuesday after Australia Day and they had a full display section of lamb chops expiring that day. Obviously they hadn't had the Australia Day weekend lamb orders they expected.

None of the $~20 packs that I had gone there to buy were discounted more than 20c. I think they are allergic to offering actual discounts, to the point they'd rather throw out an entire display of lamb than offer them at a discount that would tempt people to change their that night dinner plans.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Back in the day losing a couple thousand dollars of meat meant you had serious fucking problems.

Now it just means a write off and a tax deduction.

[–] FreedomAdvocate 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If they deeply discount those things all it does is lead to customers only being willing to buy deeply discounted about to expire meat, at which point there’s no point them stocking meat because they would just be flushing money down the toilet.

Unfortunately it’s better business to discard it, and our laws basically mean they can’t even donate it once it is even a minute past the best before/expiry date.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

British supermarkets properly discount meat that’s on its last day, and they still manage to be a cartel running a racket on the consumer.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not suggesting deep discounts, just some discount, 10% seems reasonable. Still plenty of profit for them, not enough to move it into a different price category. Anyway poor people will eat pork which is less than half the cost of lamb

This isn't the weekly excess order. This is unsold Australia Day meat, hardly common

[–] lifeinlarkhall@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Coles kitchen butter chicken has been on a "2 for $15" special for about 4 years now 😅 I specifically remember because I was in hospital a couple of times that year and had my folks bring it in to me because the hospital food was gross. It's never been not on special 🤷‍♀️

[–] FreedomAdvocate 2 points 1 month ago

Because that’s a deal, not a special.

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I hope someone takes them to court over spying on people with AI cameras next. That must've already happened, right?

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's no law however that protects against that though unless they record voice..

[–] FreedomAdvocate 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They can record voice too. You’re on their property.

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's incorrect in most states. Wiretapping laws generally would require that they're part of the conversation

I used to install cctv....

[–] FreedomAdvocate 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When used for surveillance to prevent theft by a business that’s not the case.

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's not true, at least not in Victoria and many other states I'm aware of. Again, I know because I used to install/configure cameras, including in carparks and even a large shopping center. It's also why most cameras don't even include a mic at all

Feel free to show us the exception in the law.

Furthermore, it wouldn't make any sense as it would be the world's most obvious loophole and violate people's privacy. As literally everyone could just claim they were trying to identify theft. And, it would still allow people to listen to the conversation if they were watching the nvr without being a part of the convo

In some states, you need to be a part of the conversation. In others, you need permission from the other side too.

This isn't just Australia, world-wide in most countries a sign doesn't count for consent

There's a reason you never see security footage on TV with audio recorded. You can possibly record a crime being performed as evidence, but, supermarket cameras would be recording all audio, including unrelated audio ..

[–] FreedomAdvocate 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It depends on the purpose and the use. Recording audio on theft prevention cameras is allowed, as long as it’s not being used specifically for spying on private conversations. Ie employees can’t just watch it to listen to what people are saying.

[–] FreedomAdvocate 2 points 1 month ago

What would you sue them for exactly? What law do you think they’ve broken?

[–] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I remember seeing a video of their system behind the scenes, maybe in an attempt to reassure us we're not being facial recognitioned or something -- it showed height dots walking around the store.

Hmm, so it's actually far worse.. I suppose that means gait analysis, too (≈mood/tiredness?). Combined with where you go in the store, how you pause at each display, what time of day/week, then finally correlating it with your card details and direct in your face camera at the checkout.

It's an incredibly detailed picture of who someone is.

What a lovely relationship they have with Palantir and Microsoft. I love being a participant in the genocide machine every time I feed myself. (I'm assuming Coles is still in bed with them).

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Another reason to go to IGA instead

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

No idea why someone downvoted you.

Would prefer lots of independent stores than 3 massive conglomerates