Slashdot Mirror


Employers Switching From Payroll Checks To Prepaid Cards With Fees

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports a growing number of American workers are being paid by prepaid payroll card. The cards often have fees attached to basic services like making a cash withdrawal or for inactivity. Some employees report that the employers pay by card by default, with paperwork barriers to opting out, and some report that their employers refuse to pay them by check or direct deposit. The issuing banks pitch the cards to employers as a cost-cutting payroll alternative, and sometimes even offer a financial reward for each employee they sign up."

1,103 comments

  1. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They don't. They tend to pay bi-weekly.

  2. How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand how this can be legal - fees for withdrawals is basically a pay cut. I guess this is what you get when you believe unions are evil...

    1. Re:How is this legal? by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its the sad old story. A century of gains to pay and conditions due to the hard work and often militancy of unions. Then everyone gets comfortable in the 80s ,decide reagans right and the unions are evil, and its all fine and dandy until the economy crashes and suddenly everyones up shit creek without a paddle because they abandoned the unions and theres no one left to stand up to this crap. Our chickens have come home to roost.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon America; you used to be such a beacon to the rest of the world.

    3. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      lol - this has nothing to do with unions, and is in fact just as possible in a union shop. Do you honestly thing the union does anything for you? They'll sell you down the river for the latest BMW just as fast as the most greedy corporate CEO. The days of unions providing anything of tangible benefit are long gone.

    4. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with unions. It's all about the corruption of banks and the force that they can impose through government laws that they help write (which is why more laws is exactly the problem). Take Wal-Mart for example. The problem is not that Wal-Mart doesn't have unions, it's that Wal-Mart relies on it's employees taking advantage of government welfare programs. If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

      So that's step 1, if Wal-Mart was forced to pay actual market wages, you'd see a huge shift in the flow of money through retail. Couple that with all the laws that prevent small banks from flourishing and you have a scenario where people are literally forced, by government violence, into slave labor wages using a system that only exists because government masters have ordained the banks as rulers of the universe (with laws written by said bankers).

      The problem isn't unions (or lack thereof)...it all boils down to government being the problem, as usual.

    5. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, my union threatened strikes unless we were paid equally for equal work. They also cut out the effective overtime without pay that was going on (you must be available on cell at all times), and stopped the fire-rehire on lower contract that was threatened.

      But, you know, your stories are good too.

    6. Re:How is this legal? by gtirloni · · Score: 0

      So unions should sell their services as insurance for the status quo basically? Looks a plausible strategy since they rarely help improve anything.

      --
      none
    7. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess this is what you get when you believe unions are evil...

      But they are! Unions have done nothing but raise costs and cause distress for all those poor whittle employers. Just think how much more work could be done without all the lazy people demanding "living wages" (they should be working 2 or 3 jobs instead of expecting decent pay!), 2 days off, working only 40 hours/week (and then if they work more many of these same fuckers expect time and a half!). And don't get me started on all the increased expenses just to make sure employees are safe at work. What country are we living in? The Soviet fucking Union!!! Even that name has that evil "union" word in it!

      But more seriously, it is quite amusing since you know the same people who bash unions would throw a shit fit if they lost their weekends, 40 hour weeks, and other benefits that the average worker now takes for granted that took unions decades to get us.

    8. Re:How is this legal? by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes unions are so great that in many states and in many professions you are forced to join one. I have no problem with voluntary unions, but unions can be just as oppressive as employers.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    9. Re:How is this legal? by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really think they'd try this shit if there was a well-organized, fighting working class? No way. They only do it because they think they can get away with it.

    10. Re:How is this legal? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is what you get when you believe that ever freer markets will do anything and everything more efficiently than ever before -- Chaos.

      Any company that cannot handle its own payroll should not be licensed to trade. It's that simple.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep believing your own bullshit man. It must smell very good indeed.

    12. Re:How is this legal? by bondsbw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is idealized and only a few unions ever truly seemed to work for the employees.

      A friend recently told me why he is no longer part of his union. This particular union provides legal protection, and that's the only reason anyone joins. The employees all keep a minor amount of petty cash on hand, which was against policy but everyone does it out of necessity (but everyone knows that requesting a check to be cut could take weeks or months, so they get away with it). But my friend's coworker got on bad terms with someone else, and that was taken to his supervisor who by policy had to take disciplinary action.

      So he called his union. The union's response? "We suggest you resign."

      This person had the same job for 29 years, mind you.

      But he took his union's advice (which wasn't smart)... now he works in a grocery store and can't get a job in his field, because his action of resigning was basically admitting guilt.

      Paying union dues for 29 years got him this.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    13. Re:How is this legal? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To the Anonymous Coward,

      While unions have a potential upside for some workers, in an unregulated fashion, just as corporations, they will expand and abuse their power. In non-right to work states, this is very prevalent. Unions in such states have become mafia run organizations, bullying business for more contributions and bullying workers to participate and pay into these unions. They play both sides of the isle because they can, not helping either.

      The point is Unions, unchecked, are no better than any other organization competing for your money and tend to lead to worse market conditions.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    14. Re:How is this legal? by green1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      and my union negotiated away double time overtime in favour of time and a half in exchange for union dues being deducted from the lump sum signing bonus...

      But, you know, your stories are good too.

    15. Re:How is this legal? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      If your'e not happy being a worker bee in a union shop, you might be in a field where your aspirations will not be met. That's more or less my take on unions. They're good for certain fields, but not others.

    16. Re:How is this legal? by sosume · · Score: 2

      Besides, isn't this a form of a Truck System? Which is illegal in many countries, but apparently not in the US.

    17. Re:How is this legal? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. Here in Australia many of the top professions (lawyers, doctors and the like) are both union shops and closed shops. The professional bodies set the rules and decide how many people to allow in.

      Funny though, these bodies are never called unions. What's good for the goose does not appear to be good for the gander.

    18. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.

    19. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Union won't cover embezzlement? Oh deary me, how cruel.

    20. Re: How is this legal? by Spit · · Score: 1

      It is most definitely scrip.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    21. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unions can be just as oppressive as employers.

      "I am oppressed" can be transcribed as "I have no choice". If you get oppressed either way (by employers or by unions), it is last warning signal to abandon ship and change career. Choose another game, one in which you are not the underdog.

    22. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would disagree. The problem with unions today is the "professional union organizers," that is, those whose sole purpose is working for the union. They tend to be the children and grand children of the people who worked hard to improve workers' conditions and don't know a job other than working for the union. The original union organizers were men and women who actually worked the line. They were leaders who decided to organize workers and they did this at great risk to their lives and their family.

      The real problem is that without unions, there's no one to represent the working class. Period. Sure, a company can make it tolerable, but how many "salaried" workers are being worked to death and don't even realize it? You have to be in your 40s before you realize what bullshit it is to put in the "expected 60 hours a week."

      Unions have become what they are because politicians have abandoned workers and corporations have attacked unions. The reaction of unions is to preserve themselves. Corporations have made damned sure that no worker is so comfortable that they can strike. We've all put ourselves in a positions such that, no matter how much you make, you're living hand to mouth and can't afford to strike.

      Unions no represent only about 12% of workers in the private sector. They're not a threat to anyone. If life sucks, you can't really blame it on the union (the guys who got you the 40 hour week that is slowly being taken away from you).

    23. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I don't think it is, because it is actually US dollars held by a FDIC financial institution. The case you can make is that it's a violation of contract to pay effectively lower wages by payment processing fees being taken from the worker's side instead of the employer's. Of course, these employees probably all signed contracts that prohibit class action lawsuits(thanks supreme court!), and individual suits are more expensive than the recuperated costs.... so... basically fuck you.

    24. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so one union gave bad advice. And from that you conclude that the majority of unions is bad?

    25. Re:How is this legal? by cfulmer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Recognize:

      (1) This situation is often better than the alternative, where the employee gets a check and has to go to a check-cashing place, which charges even higher fees.

      (2) The card fees are generally transaction-based, so the fewer transactions, the less in fees: The guy in the article who spends $40/month on fees is a moron: He should take all the money out in one fell swoop. That might cost him $1.75, but that's far less than he would have paid at a check-cashing place.

      (3) Despite what the article says, this is usually what happens when the employee doesn't choose direct-deposit. There may be a few employers out there who are actually dropping direct-deposit, but the majority of employers are using these cards only for those people to whom they usually issued checks.

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts. Free checking still exists at smaller local banks and credit unions (check out first citizens, for example). If they got bank accounts with direct deposit, they could move away from these cards.

      That said, it is disgusting how the big banks seem to be gleeful about making money on the ignorance of poor people.

    26. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, this kind of worker abuse is exactly the sort of thing that unions were created to combat in the first place.
      These employers are essentially taking the company store concept one step further and have invented the company bank.

    27. Re:How is this legal? by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, yeah, if you like to skew your history to suit your political bias, that's the story.

      There's plenty examples of cycles like that in history. What really happens is that there's an inequality (employers vs employees), the employees band together to address the inequality (unions), then the inequality slowly slips the other way (union corruption), forces gather to displace the unions, and the cycle starts again. It's an alternation between two inequalities, with only a brief period of equilibrium. Portraying either the employers or the unions as pure of heart is equally disingenuous.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    28. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to get your union pitch in there even though this has nothing to do with a union issue. Troll much?

    29. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were our chickens doing out on shit creek?

    30. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in a country free from unions.

      Last month our boss did not pay out R&D salaries. "Project is late, nobody gets paid until you deliver." From experience we know
      that the first one to file a suit is fired, possibly with false accusations of sexual misconduct at work. Seen it happen.
      Too bad I am dependent on the company to stay in the country, if I quit I am thrown out within five days, with nowhere to go. So
      I am hoping I get my June and July salary in August (because the project is still not on par with management expectations).

      That is what you get without unions. Someone who can gather everyone at the company and say: "nobody works until you pay".

    31. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there was more to it than that (like preventing layoffs) but you can look at it through your filter.

    32. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like ye ol' guild system...

    33. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey stupid, Regan? Really, your blaming him? Unions are evil, did they stop the tide of outsourcing? No, but I'm sure to you stupid liberals that's a good thing.

    34. Re:How is this legal? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher

      I also fixed that for you.

      Unions only live by sucking funds from workers, remember.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    35. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like Detroit.

      Stop making up lies.

    36. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      Bounce a few checks, have a 'balance owed' at any bank and you will quickly understand why. Most 'poor' people ride the edge. Go over once and you can easily be 200 bucks in the hole in fees and overdrafts. So even if you make money its soaked up into fees because you went 3 cents over 3 months ago. You have to go in and negotiate a 'not enough money in account do not put fees on me just dont cash the check'. All banks are now required to give you that option (they do not by default).

      My wife had a 10 dollar fee owed at one bank (was playing the I can get the money in before they cash the check game). Another bank would not even let her open an account until that fee was taken care of. Also the fee being nearly 3 years old the old bank did not even know who she should give the money too. They all talk to each other about who owes what. It took 3 months of calls and going into different branches/offices to get it all straight. Even a few times of phone go round where you get transferred around until you end up back at the first person. Then once the fee was cleared you have to ride the people to do the paperwork to clear it out of the system.

      You are under the assumption that people know how to take care of their money. Most dont. I have considered starting a 'manage your money' company which helps people get their money under control. It takes work. Money is a responsibility. Many people are not responsible.

    37. Re:How is this legal? by portwojc · · Score: 1

      I think blaming the absence of a union here is misplaced. One could argue they charge a fee as well (dues). Often involuntary whether you want the union or not. Which could be considered like this. Someone figured there was a buck to be made somewhere in the process and took advantage. If it's legal I'm sure it will be corrected soon enough along with a lawsuit that will surely make someone else a bit of cash... They did it with gift cards now they are just going at it from another angle.

    38. Re:How is this legal? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have to be oppressed by someone, being "oppressed" by a Union is likely a far better option.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    39. Re:How is this legal? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      1, if they've written bad checks, the bank simply won't give them an account. 2, when your money is in the bank, it can be easily taken without your consent - various kinds of debt, credit agencies, lawyers, even the feds. Cash money in hand (or hidden wherever), much harder for third parties to access, hence, you can live easier when in trouble. 3, banks keep shitty hours: when you need your money in the evening and you can't get it, that can be a problem when the issue at hand is diapers, etc. 4, even when "free", make an error (common with low income types), and the bank will hose you with a huge fee (or fees... they can be pretty tricky about things like the order they cash/bounce when you overdraw. 5, location can be an issue if you're not mobile. There's probably more than this too; these were just off the top of my head.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    40. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its all fine and dandy until the economy crashes and suddenly everyones up shit creek without a paddle because they abandoned the unions and theres no one left to stand up to this crap.

      Indeed. The conservatives have been very shrewd in attacking the foundations of the power of the middle class over the last half-century. Instead of trying to win the political war, which wasn't winnable, they went after the money.Conservatives (Democrats and Republicans alike) removed a huge chunk of the influence working Americans had on publicly traded corporations when they passed ERISA, which contained provisions that outlawed union influence over investment decisions. A union pension plan could no longer divest in Walmart, for example, for political reasons. The two factions of the corporate party are still unhappy with the influence that some working people have through their public employee retirement funds. When those pension funds do things like force a shareholder vote on Wells Fargo's foreclosure practices, or block a vote on Walmart's Board of Directors such as CalPERS did in the last couple of years, it really riles up the politicians who depend on those businesses for campaign funds. Hence, the recent popularity of attacking the financial influence of public employee retirement funds.

    41. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so ... the problem is not that we have a corporation who pays criminally low wages, forcing those who would work there to take advantage of government assistance programs to feed themselves and their children ... and that this corporation is by and far the dominant retailer of just about *everything* -- and if you don't believe that try going through a natural disaster. After Hospitals, you know who is the NUMBER TWO PRIORITY for restoring power? WAL-MART, because they essentially ARE our nation's logistics infrastructure for food, for flashlights, for batteries, for toiletries. Basically your town is FUCKED without Wal-Mart ... think about that.

      So, you're saying the problem is that there is a government assistance program for the prospective employees to take advantage of at all! Why, if there wasn't a government assistance program, Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to take advantage of their employees! The people can just starve or go grovel at the church doors!
      ALL HAIL THE COMPANY!

      Heaven forbid we should hold practically the sole provider of our nation's logistics infrastructure to some sort of standards! That'd be Communism, right?

    42. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The equivalent entities in the EU (with a handful of exceptions concerning things like security services) aren't allowed to be closed shops. You can be a doctor in the UK for example, without being a member of the BMA, just the same way you can drive a train here without joining ASLEF.

    43. Re:How is this legal? by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But they are! Unions have done nothing but raise costs and cause distress for all those poor whittle employers. Just think how much more work could be done without all the lazy people demanding "living wages" (they should be working 2 or 3 jobs instead of expecting decent pay!), 2 days off, working only 40 hours/week (and then if they work more many of these same fuckers expect time and a half!). And don't get me started on all the increased expenses just to make sure employees are safe at work. What country are we living in? The Soviet fucking Union!!! Even that name has that evil "union" word in it!

      But more seriously, it is quite amusing since you know the same people who bash unions would throw a shit fit if they lost their weekends, 40 hour weeks, and other benefits that the average worker now takes for granted that took unions decades to get us.

      The problem that unions face is one of bad PR. When unions are going toe to toe with corporate giants, everyone cheers for the union, but many union rules pit the union and its membership directly against the supervisors and lower management. There then becomes the perception that the union protects the lazy workers against the poor hard-working supervisor (or other union members) who have to pick up the slack. That automatically creates an entire legion of people who are right at the beginning of their careers. Many of those young supervisors and mangers will eventually find their way into positions of policy making, and they wont forget how hard they had to work because the union protected people it had no business protecting. The end result is a large swath of the population willing to testify that unions are bad.

      Unions need to get much more picky about their rules. Seniority shouldn't count for nearly as much as it does. It should get you preference on vacations, and more time off than those with lower seniority, but the pay discrepancy is far too large. The unions should also figure out how to reward their hard working members at the expense of their lazier members. This will induce their members to *want* to work hard, and everyone wins. The union gets a better reputation with the world at large, the hard working members get unions protection and the best wages they can get. The lazy members get compensated less if they choose to remain lazy, and the company gets a more reliable work ethic. Most importantly, you reduce the animosity between lower management and the workers, which is critical to keeping an anti-union sentiment from growing in the population at large. Such a union would have tremendous bargaining power at the negotiating table, as they would bring an elite workforce to bear, and present a much less complicated job of managing and supervising.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    44. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have either of you two ever actually worked in a union? I have (telecom industry), and it sucked worse than when I was an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart. Goodbye to unscheduled days off, decent shifts, promotions, or special treatment when you need it.

      Every bee is the same, every minute is tracked, every task is monitored. In fact, the only people who I saw actually using the union were those that abused the crap out of the company and wanted to delay getting fired as long as possible.

      Unless you have a enough seniority to get what you want (in telecom, this would be somewhere around 10 years), unions blow to work under.

    45. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And yet unemployment rates don't seem to reflect that as a core relationship. Maybe because when companies go out of business, the space is available for competition again anyways.

    46. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My union would never stand for this BS, that's why I said it. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing unions are supposed to stop, and HAVE stopped in the past (see company stores).

    47. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      About low-income people and bank accounts --- in many cases, they don't have one because they don't want to accumulate more than $2000. In many states, that's the asset limit for Medicaid. So if you go over that limit, you have to pay all your medical bills. So people get into the habit of living hand-to-mouth and never save any money.

      In 2014, the asset limit for Medicaid disappears! So theoretically, people will be able to open bank accounts and start saving up money. But after all these years of not saving, I don't expect any sudden shift to people being smart about money.

    48. Re:How is this legal? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher
      I also fixed that for you.

      You must be American. Having worked in countries with unions and without them, I can unequivocally say that the pay rate is higher where you have unions.

      Unions only live by sucking funds from workers, remember.

      Unions are the workers. They don't suck from themselves, the suck from the companies.

    49. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously, Detroit isn't a state, and right-to-work West Virginia lost the same quantity of coal-related jobs when the U.S. de-industrialized a bit over the last decades. There are multiple factors in play, which makes cherry picking easy, and people in union allowing states are better off on average.

      A bit more detail on just how dramatic the difference in wages is, and yes, there is a rising tide effect where non-union employees earn more in a union state: Not just an opinion

    50. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher

      I also fixed that for you.

      Unions only live by sucking funds from workers, remember.

      Oops, it looks like you posted the opposite of reality. Would you like help writing a letter?

    51. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Wal-Mart has it's own ATM's that don't charge fees to associates using them.

    52. Re:How is this legal? by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference between Unions and other organisations (powerful or otherwise) is that they are set up to operate in the worker's interest. They are not flawless, but in the first place, their task is to protect workers from employer exploitation. Better this than no-one to stand up to scum employers like McDonald's. Except it isn't really them it's just one little franchisee, and "the two are completely separate, your honour."

    53. Re: How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't scrip, but it isn't legal tender either.
      Personally, I'd refuse it and then take them to court for withholding wages.

    54. Re:How is this legal? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't regulation, is is over regulation. Banks are so regulated, that they keep increasing the riskiness of their programs in search of a decent (or abusive) profit.

      If my company tried this crap, I would take them to court and sue the crap out of them. Pay me my wages, in a check or in direct deposit. You don't get to control my money after you pay me. PERIOD. I don't bank with your bank, it is your bank. Give me the card, but if you or your agent take anything out of it for my privilege of using my money, there will be hell to pay.

      Why isn't there a class action lawsuit? If there is any restrictions on a paycheck, then it isn't pay, it is something else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    55. Re:How is this legal? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It may be dollars in name, but, in fact, it is only the representation of dollars. It costs money to get it turned into actual dollars.

    56. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions, like anything, can be used for good or evil. Hostess went out of business because union demands created too much strain on the company and it could not survive. Unions were also used to get a 40 hour work week and safer working conditions.

      People like to cherry-pick their evidence and say that "unions are always [good|evil]" when the truth is that they can be used for either. Just like unions keep businesses in check, unions need to be kept in check to ensure they do not get out of control.

    57. Re:How is this legal? by XcepticZP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unions are all fine and dandy, mostly. They should be allowed, as they probably allow workers to have collective bargaining power against a company/group of companies.

      The problem arises when unions decide that that collective bargaining power is not enough, and that they need to resort to lobbying the state/government to give them protection/favors. It not only complicates tax law, regulations, but it makes it unfair for workers NOT to be in a union, despite the private sector probably giving higher wages.

      Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way. Or at least reduce it, because you can never hope to outlaw union lobbying.

    58. Re:How is this legal? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your credit score if bad enough (as can happen when you don't have enough money to make ends meet), you may only qualify for 'special' bank accounts with significant fees attached. Being poor can be very expensive in the U.S.

    59. Re:How is this legal? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Fuck that. Doesn't take well organized. It takes a lawyer that can think beyond "go to the file cabinet, file lawsuit". ANY restrictions on MY money is all the proof I need to say it isn't my money. And if the company isn't paying me in money I can use, as I see fit, without restrictions or fees, then I file lawsuit.

      My guess, is the company is getting a kickback on the float interest and the fees generated by the bank. Collusion to defraud. I'm sure there is a statute against this kind of crap if the lawyers would simply get off their asses and do their job.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    60. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart does pay market wages. There seems to be no lack of workers willing to accept employment at Walmart. Or do you mean "arbitrary government controlled wages not related to supply and demand?"

    61. Re:How is this legal? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Actually, this has nothing to do with free markets. This has everything to do with employers and banks defrauding people of their money. This is a crime and a conspiracy. All it takes is a decent lawyer to figure out how restricting my pay makes it "not my money", and sue the bastards. My pay should be free from any company restrictions. Period. The company's bank is not my bank, I have no business with them. If I can't get the money out of the account without restrictions, then it isn't my money. Period.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    62. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It may be dollars in name, but, in fact, it is only the representation of dollars. It costs money to get it turned into actual dollars.

      Hmm, where does this money come from? Certainly not scrip, or that wouldn't really count. I'm not really defending this, because these corporations should burn for eternity for offloading fees onto their employees. But it's not the same.

    63. Re:How is this legal? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Stupid people get into trouble, and then blame the system for them being stupid.

      I have little sympathy for people stuck in this kind of merry-go-round, because more often then not, it is of their own making. My daughter does this, because she is an idiot, never takes my advice and does what she wants and then doesn't understand when shit goes badly. You can't fix stupid. The good news, is at 28, she is starting to realize that making stupid choices has consequences. School of hard knocks.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    64. Re:How is this legal? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

      Except unless this can be made a class lawsuit, it is worthless to the lawyers since it is not worth their time. Typically they get paid a % of the winnings of a suit in cases when their clients are poor (which is most likely the case here). Well a % of ~$50-60 dollars isn't even worth 5 minutes of their time.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    65. Re:How is this legal? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Having a lot of unions also tends to raise the cost of living for everyone.

    66. Re:How is this legal? by KalvinB · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

      The teachers are ruled by unions. Do they work 40 hour weeks?

      No.

      And Twinkies.

      You don't need unions to get fair treatment. The employees just need to get together and tell the boss if they don't get paid properly they're all quitting.

    67. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions are all fine and dandy, mostly. They should be allowed, as they probably allow workers to have collective bargaining power against a company/group of companies.

      The problem arises when unions decide that that collective bargaining power is not enough, and that they need to resort to lobbying the state/government to give them protection/favors. It not only complicates tax law, regulations, but it makes it unfair for workers NOT to be in a union, despite the private sector probably giving higher wages.

      Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way. Or at least reduce it, because you can never hope to outlaw union lobbying.

      Are you OK with employers lobbying the state for things like lower/no minimum wage, reduced workplace safety requirements, reduced disability/layoff compensation, etc? Because they lobby the SHIT out of the government, at the local, state, and national level. To think that the unions just do it because they feel like it, or are on some sort of power trip, is completely ignoring why the unions exist in the first place: because the same exact "overbearing" actions that we are quick to loath the unions for taking FOR workers, the corporations did AGAINST workers.

    68. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's another one:

      If you're low-income, you could live in low-income housing. Which, for reasons related to abuse of the system (think about Steve Jobs' $1 salary and apply that to someone with absolutely zero shame), is not based on your actual income (cash flow), but is instead based on your net worth including savings. But it has the effect of making low-income housing dwellers either A) not save anything and never improve their lot in life, or B) save, but keep it under the mattress because keeping it in a bank makes it traceable and will get you kicked out of your home.

      I have a friend that lives in low-income housing, and he fits into scenario B. He makes probably $15k/year and definitely needs the low-income assistance. His savings is a wad of cash, locked up in a box in his closet. If he put it in a bank, he wouldn't qualify to have his apartment. But his savings isn't near enough to live anywhere else and his income is still low. He'd be homeless.

    69. Re:How is this legal? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      The point is Corporations, unchecked, are no better than any other organization competing for your money and tend to lead to worse market conditions.

      At least the unions are nominally on the side of workers.

      Both are needed to keep each other in check. Capitalists will tell you competition is good, except when we're talking about anything that threatens the availability of cheap labor

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    70. Re:How is this legal? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The same place the money came from to stock the shelves in the company store.

    71. Re:How is this legal? by Teun · · Score: 1
      Indeed, the problem is not the union(s) but the law that allows Closed Shop operations.

      Besides, Europe generally signs up to international (UN sponsored) laws and they specify the freedom to unionise.

      That same freedom disallows any entity to specify which union you join but obviously you're best off with a union that is recognised by the employer.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    72. Re:How is this legal? by Wookact · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am fine with that, but then companies can no longer lobby either. I am willing to bet they cause more problems then the unions with their lobbying.

    73. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan was right--conservative and correct in his initial economic views.
      Unions are evil--their time passed decades ago and they become places to harbor crooks and slackards and penalize workers.

    74. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll disagree.

      There needs to be a balance. Unions should cover working conditions (including healthcare and payroll methods) while the business should decide pay rates and hours.

      The reason companies like Chrysler and GM were in such trouble was because those companies could not scale back anything due to the unions. But that's not the only union in the world, construction, law enforcement, medical (nurses/doctors) and grocery store workers are also mostly union places, and with the exception of the grocery workers (UFCW) , the unions generally protect their members. UFCW only exists to push down wages (Most grocery store works make minimium wage + a few pennies, so the union dues result in them making LESS than minimum wage, and no medical coverage.) Take a typical UFCW contract and add this payroll prepaid BS on top and the average grocery worker could be making net-nothing if they get boned with the one-day-a-week schedule post-christmas.

    75. Re:How is this legal? by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's not really an either or proposition.

      I think managers AND unions are BOTH evil.

      Either side would happily cheat and rob you blind if they could get away with it.

    76. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unions are the workers." -- Not in the good old USA.
      Unions are dens of thieves preying on their members while the "bosses" (officers of the unions) live it up with outrageous perks, pensions, benefits and salaries.

      Disclaimer: I am a retired member, in good standing, of a national USA union.
      My father was a union member and always told me that it was "protection money"--if you didn't pay union dues, the Union goons would kill you. He learned a new skill and started his own small business to escape their "benefits".

    77. Re:How is this legal? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Lesson learned?

      Don't throw stones if you're in a glass house.

      Namely, if you're in a precarious position, don't piss off someone that can shove you off the edge of the cliff.

      Your friend put himself in a position where his coworker had him by the balls, and it got him castrated.

    78. Re:How is this legal? by noldrin · · Score: 1

      In general, unless you have a contract, they are allowed to at will cut your salary as much as they want, as long as your pay is not reduced to below minimum wage.

    79. Re:How is this legal? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 2

      Yup.. My only experience with a union was back in the 80s.. I worked for a defense contractor as an electronics tech, despite that job title, I had to be a member of the machinists union.. $20/mo, worked there for nearly 5 years, so $1200 I paid to that union in dues. When I asked for a little help, when the department manager, who didn't like me a bit, despite getting along great with, and great reviews from, my immediate boss, decided he was gonna can me for doing something I'd been TOLD to do by my boss, that HE didn't approve of.. Instead of canning my boss, he cans me. I expect due to the fact I put in a grievance to the union steward everytime this fat pig violated the collective bargaining agreement, such as overtime selection, etc.. All his "pets" got the overtime, others got none. Anyway, I came into work the next day, and was told I was canned. Explained to the union steward the background, and the words out of his worthless mouth was "sorry for you, we can't help you"... The fat fuck department head was so vindictive he pulled strings to get my unemployment denied. I tried appealing but apparently he had too much clout. I went and spoke to an attorney who specialized in labor relations, and after telling him the story, he said "you have a good case.. gimme $5K retainer and I'll see what I can do"... yeah, right... Anyway, FUCK UNIONS!!!

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    80. Re:How is this legal? by Teun · · Score: 1
      Your problem is not primarily the lack of unions but the absence of proper labour and contract laws.

      Your example would in most jurisdictions been simple and clear breach of contract.

      My country obviously allows the freedom of organisation as unionisation is also called but you don't really need to be unionised to have a decent contract as the law draws the bottom line and is the same for all.
      The bottom line are things like the working hours directive, minimum wages and health and safety regulations.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    81. Re:How is this legal? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, so you must not be American, because the unions don't suck from companies, they do suck from you. And they are not "us", they are permanent union employees and shop stewards who supposedly "represent" the rest of us. Much like the people of the United States are "represented" by Congress. You see how well that is working out.

      It is my understanding that unions work differently in Europe, please understand that the hatred that many people have for unions in the US is not hatred for labor organizations as you might understand them. US unions are NOT the same thing as European unions.

      That said, there are some places in Europe were I get the feeling that every worker is the equivalent of our government workers, relative job and benefit security, but not always the greatest places to actually get work done effectively.

    82. Re:How is this legal? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

      Nope. If those programs didn't exist, people would still work at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart destroyed other local employers, leaving them little alternative.

      it all boils down to government being the problem, as usual.

      Only if you understand that Wal-Mart, like all corporations (indeed, all "property", as we know it) is a creation of a government.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    83. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Are you Zuul?

      Because choosing the form of your destructor seems to be what you are proposing here.

    84. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal correlation is causation.

    85. Re:How is this legal? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      The states are doing this shit with unemployment benefits.. They send you a debit card and they put your weekly stipend on it. The last time I had to do the "unemployment shuffle", I got one of the cards, and found out all the flippin' fees they put on it.. The only way to avoid the fees, and what I used, was to take the card weekly to my credit union and pull the weekly stipend off it in one transaction, for which there was no charge. Watch for THAT loophole to change too...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    86. Re:How is this legal? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The teachers are ruled by unions. Do they work 40 hour weeks? No.

      Define "work." Prepping for classes, grading, and meetings can and do easily get them over 40 hours. And, you don't work 100% of the time you're "on the clock." You're on slashdot for one thing. You're slacking off. I think you'd find it's near impossible to post on slashdot if you're in front of 30 students teaching. Teachers work harder than most of us do.

      And Twinkies.

      demise was caused by ridiculous mismanagement and private equity firms using hostess as a credit card, running up 800 million in debt, then telling the workers to pay for it with 30% pay cuts.

      If the unions can be blamed there, it's for two reasons. One, they failed to point out to the idiot public exactly what was going on and two, they failed to strangle the thieves on wall street, allowing them to live another day and rob more Americans.

    87. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just read a story about factory workers in China who captured their American CEO and imprisoned him in the building until their demands were met. It worked. The police refused to get involved because it was deemed a business dispute! Whatzup China!?

    88. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      So you are blaming your employers for government policy (5 days until thrown out of the country, employer gets to breach contract on pay at will)?

      It is the local government that has made you into a slave. Turning to a free association union might help, but the answer is most emphatically NOT to turn to a union run system where said unions use the government to put the chains onto the employers.

    89. Re:How is this legal? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

      Would you like help writing a letter?

      Shame on you for crushing him with facts!

      Please think of the Tr0lls and don't crush them. They're really quite squishy and drippy and make a mess that SOMEONE is going to have to clean up.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    90. Re:How is this legal? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts."

      Because we got sick and fucking tired for the banks dinging us on every transaction as well, charging us overdraft fees after restructuring our payments so they could incur those fees.

      Get your head out of the sand and start looking, and maybe you'll start seeing.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    91. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Contrary to popular belief, free markets don't let you commit fraud or steal. There are laws against that.

    92. Re:How is this legal? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. The cities/states with higher union presence have a higher standard of living, due to the increased wages and benefits, which fuels the economy when those workers pay for goods and services.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    93. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Those fees used to be reasonable and perfectly manageable even for "idiots". The central banks have fucked up the financial systems so badly that they can't make any money any more, and have to use enormous fees to stay in business.

      Better show some sympathy while you can. When the bail-ins come to this country, you will be in the same boat as all the other "idiots" who continued to trust a floundering banking system.

    94. Re:How is this legal? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You can cash checks for free at the issuing bank, you know. You don't NEED a bank account. It can just be convenient sometimes, but the price on those accounts has risen to the point that it isn't worth it.

    95. Re:How is this legal? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is idealized and only a few unions ever truly seemed to work for the employees.

      Personal Anecdote FTFail!

      Here are a few things you can "blame" on Unions:

      • Weekends
      • 40-hr work weeks
      • Sick days
      • Being able to live wherever you want, not just a company house
      • No more child labor
      • Benefits
      • Fair hiring practices
      • Fair promotion practices

      Now, please regale up with more tales of flight and fancy and how the unions are to blame!

      --
      Yeah, right.
    96. Re:How is this legal? by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have that show they rarely help improve anything? When I worked for Verizon Telecom/Frontier the union made sure our wages were above that of similar jobs in the area. They made sure our benefits were great. My union also went to bat if an employee's performance was deemed "less than satisfactory" and would look at the situation (it was a customer service/sales position that tried to sell inferior products at a rate far more expensive than competitors with crappier service) before management would cull the herd of sales people who didn't lie or leave out details like "this is a 2 year contract". There are plenty of good unions out there and I speak from experience.

    97. Re:How is this legal? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      So basically, you are happy to take all of the advantages of the union, but expect everyone else to pay for it.

    98. Re:How is this legal? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I'll counter your anecdote.

      My father was sometimes in, sometimes not in one of the big British teacher's unions. In his final job, when he was about three years away from retirement, the head teacher essentially wanted to get rid of him -- he was one of about five remaining older staff whom the previous headteacher had employed. Unfortunately, the children he taught all got excellent results, and he ran a couple of high-effort after school clubs.

      Anyway, the headteacher accused him of cheating the result on exams, which was untrue. The union helped my dad prove that this wasn't true, and helped negotiate that he'd retire at the end of the school year with a good pay-off. (This was a private school, no taxpayer money involved.)

      FWIW, "but everyone did it" is usually an excellent legal defence for workplace issues of lower-paid staff in the UK. It reflects the problem onto managers, who should have made sure everyone didn't do it. With a union, everyone should have been safe to say "I did it" to support your friend without losing their jobs too. Clearly, there's something wrong with the American implementation.

    99. Re:How is this legal? by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      And? Just because a company has piss poor management, it doesn't mean the employees should be paid a crap wage that is then subsidized by tax payers.

    100. Re:How is this legal? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I guess some people prefer profiting off of the misery of others then.

    101. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your 1 experience? That sure is very representative.

    102. Re:How is this legal? by poet · · Score: 1

      Easy. It isn't the employer deducting the fees it is the bank. Therefore it is not a pay cut.

      --
      Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
    103. Re:How is this legal? by sjames · · Score: 1

      yes, you can. And for your convenience, the commercial bank your check is drawn on has a local branch office only 3 states away.

    104. Re:How is this legal? by Nerdfest · · Score: 0

      Yes. the people in unions making high wages for menial jobs and driving up the cost of living for others. The problem I have with unions is that they (tend to) break the supply and demand relationship that normally occurs. Normally, wages are determined by the number of people available for a job and the amount of skill or training required to do it. The typical union breaks that and you get things happening like bus drivers being paid more than nurses or police, purely because they've gone on strike and held the public hostage, where others can't. A very large number of people wanting these jobs at these wages should drive down the wage, but of course it doesn't. It breaks basic economics and everyone (except the bus drivers) suffers for it.

    105. Re:How is this legal? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I should state that this really only apples to public sector. If private sector companies have unions but are not forced to, competition will sort things out.

    106. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 40 hour work week was not a product of unions or unionization. But I guess a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, eh?

    107. Re:How is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but happen to notice how in the US, the states with good union representation are by and large the states that are worth living in? There are a few exceptions to the rule, but most of the South has poor union representation and the conditions down there as far as work goes are miserable compared with the unionized areas of the country.

      Just having unions in an area tends to require employers to pay better if they don't want the union coming in and organizing the workers.

    108. Re:How is this legal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how this can be legal - fees for withdrawals is basically a pay cut.

      Since when are pay cuts illegal?

    109. Re:How is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not true, and you ought to know better. If you look at states which have collective bargaining versus right to work states, the income is markedly higher in the collective bargaining states. The main exceptions are states that have large amounts of oil.

      Unions only exist as long as the members permit them to exist. The workers vote on the leadership and the workers are typically on the committees that negotiate the labor contracts. The members also have the option of leaving the union.

      The reason why unions exist is because of the members. Yeah, there are issues at times, but not as often as with corrupt employers.

    110. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was "Then", lets take a look at "Now".

      Weekends
      40-hr work weeks
      Sick days
      Being able to live wherever you want, not just a company house
      No more child labor
      Benefits

      For all of the above, most governments have laws around this now (I agree, unions were a part of this).

      Fair hiring practices
      Fair promotion practices

      Are you serious? Most union shops are now "friends and family" only. If you dont know someone in the union, good luck getting in.

      How many unions and their rigid rules are responsible (directly or indirectly) in the demise of some companies?

      Look at GM as the classic. The Union always has something to say about "management" and how they made bad choices. Little to say about their own rules which protect their numbers and hinder GM's ability to make needed changes. When GM went under the union could have become a major shareholder and put them on the golden path.

    111. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't file a suit. Anonymously report your employer to the state labor board or department of justice or whatever legal body is appropriate in your area. They'll open an investigation and then interview everyone. I suppose your employer could fire EVERYBODY since he/she won't know who complained, but then the project would be even later so that seems unlikely.

    112. Re:How is this legal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You don't need unions to get fair treatment. The employees just need to get together and ...

      When the employees "get together" and take collective action, then that is a union.

    113. Re:How is this legal? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      While unions have a potential upside for some workers, in an unregulated fashion, just as corporations, they will expand and abuse their power.

      You're right. Both unions and corporations tend to misuse their power.

      These days we've pretty much gotten rid of unions, though. So how do we get rid of the corporations?

      Oh, we can't? Maybe we better keep 'em both, to keep both in check?

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    114. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes unions are so great that in many states and in many professions you are forced to join one. I have no problem with voluntary unions, but unions can be just as oppressive as employers.

      The reasoning behind being forced to join is because it many ways, it's often impossible to not benefit from what they accomplish. For instance, look at workplace safety. Let's say the shop is up to code and compliant with OSHA regulations. Legally, the shop has done everything they need to. However, that doesn't mean there is no longer any danger. So the union goes and pushes the shop to upgrade things to make it even safer. So how exactly does the shop make these improvements to safety for union workers without benefiting non-union workers? Easy: they don't. Or lets say the union lobbies for more reasonable working hours. How does that work for the 5 non-union workers in the shop? Do they still continue to work the old hours, with just the 5 of them manning an entire 200 person assembly line? Sorry, but mixing union and non-union usually doesn't work because the non-union people just become freeloaders, getting the benefits but without contributing to the cause.

    115. Re:How is this legal? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Tyranny is still tyranny, whether imposed by the masses or not.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    116. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not that Wal-Mart doesn't have unions, it's that Wal-Mart relies on it's employees taking advantage of government welfare programs. If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

      This makes no sense to me. Eliminate welfare leads to people refusing to work for Wal-Mart? What will all the people who quit Walmart do? Would they prefer to live on he street and starve to death? To the contrary, I think eliminating welfare will make people more desperate. They'll be willing to work over-time, take under the table jobs paying below minimum wage, or resort to crime to pay the bills. Unemployed people will enter the job market out of desperation and already employed people will seek additional employment. This competition among employees will have the effect of lowering hourly wage rates. It will make it possible for employers to be more exploitative of their workers.

      So that's step 1, if Wal-Mart was forced to pay actual market wages, you'd see a huge shift in the flow of money through retail.

      I wonder if you know what the term market wage means. Are you confusing market wage with living wage? Paying market wages means that an employer pays roughly the same as other employers for a particular job. Assume Wal-Mart is paying below market wages. Let's say that on average Wal-Mart pays a full-time cashier $20,000 per year while all the other retailers in the area pay $30,000 per year. Why don't the employees at Wal-Mart find another job? Perhaps, you think welfare eliminates the incentive to find a better paying job. What about all the other retailers paying $30,000 per year. Once, they realize that Wal-Mart has no problem hiring cashiers for $20,000 wouldn't the other employers be tempted to cut their wages to save money? Do you have any evidence that Wal-Mart pays significantly less than other retailers? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Wal-Mart pays a little less that other retailers. But, based on my experience shopping at Wal-Mart, I think they're less picky about who they hire. There are a few Wal-Mart employees whom I could not imaging working for another retailer.

      By the way, I'm not defending the income equality problems we have in the U.S. I wish everyone could live comfortably working 40 hours per week. However, I think the idea that simply eliminating welfare will fix this is pretty naive.

    117. Re:How is this legal? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well, the GP can sue, as has explicitly been stated. It's just that such a lawsuit will probably result in unemployment down the line. For some people that is not an option, hence they have no recourse. (Well, they could just get the whole department to sue/strike together but that might just end in the deprtment being laid off. The rest of the company probably won't join as their wages aren't threatened and they're not going to rock the boat needlessly.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    118. Re:How is this legal? by quetwo · · Score: 1

      If you honestly think teachers don't work 40+ hours a week, you got something else coming... Most I know show up at least by 7am, teach until 4, then have to prep for the next day until at least 5. They then go home, grade papers, prep assignments, etc. Many then help with after-school activities a few days at least a day a week which can take them at the shop until at least 9. Weekends are often spent grading, planning, etc.

      I'd venture the after teacher works 60-80 hours. Those more motivated probably do more.

    119. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must never have delt with American unions.
      In Michigan the unions spent millions pushing to force in home daycare providers, and independant nursing caregivers to join the union and pay dues. Maybe that needs to sink in. These people would have to pay union dues. They worked for theirselves. Think about that for a bit.

      Now there are some unions that are good, but from where I'm sitting (Michigan) I'd say there's one good one union that actually provides any positive benefit for every four that are just there to suck down dues and pay out 7 figure salaries to the union heads.

    120. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two small corrections.

      1) I think they were referring to the union overhead.
      Here in Canada we are trying to pass a law requiring unions to detail their spending but its running into a lot of opposition. Unions are huge spenders when it comes time to support an election (running ads, etc). They dont mind spending money but dont seem to want to tell the general public (or their members) where the money goes.

      2) "they suck from the companies" - I think you mean they suck from the customers. Few things more annoying then standing in a line and watching the cashier perform minimum wage work, but earning a fat union premium which I am paying for in higher prices.

      How about when unions "merge"? Is that to better represent the workers?
      Again looking to Canada where the Canadian Auto Workers and the Communications Energy and Paper Workers union of Canada merged.

      So the skills and knowledge CAW gained over the years "representing" auto workers means they understand and can merge with the paper workers union?

    121. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (2) The card fees are generally transaction-based, so the fewer transactions, the less in fees: The guy in the article who spends $40/month on fees is a moron: He should take all the money out in one fell swoop. That might cost him $1.75, but that's far less than he would have paid at a check-cashing place.

      It is not apparent that this is an option.

      From the article, I take away that you would have to pay $1.75 to the card provider plus any applicable ATM fees, which might be on the order of $3.

      Most ATM's limit how much you can withdraw. Most I see limit at $200.

      So, if you can find an ATM with a high enough limit, and you only withdraw 1 time per month, it would seem that the minimum fee would be $4.75/month.

      In reality, most of the people are getting paid weekly or bi-weekly and probably living paycheck to paycheck (they can't afford to save up and make one monthly withdraw) so you're really talking probably 2-4 withdraws per month, or roughly $10 - $20 minimum.

      Considering that federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, you are basically saying that these people have to work up to 3 hours per month, just to cover the cost of getting paid.

      You really can't blame someone for collecting public assistance if this is their only alternative.

    122. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if there are rules that are enforced by someone (e.g. Laws) its not a free market.

    123. Re:How is this legal? by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      Certain specialized professions in the United States also has these sorts of controls, usually through licensing and whatnot. Doctors in the United States for example are controlled tightly by the American Medical Association (AMA). They dictate the number of students allowed into medical schools, the numbers licensed, etc. Law is theoretically the same as the American Bar Association (ABA) controls the number of lawyers licensed each year. However, unlike AMA which tightly controls production, ABA has been very loose with it, so whereas, people complain about the lack of doctors driving up wages, people are also complaining about the sheer glut of lawyers destabilizing the legal field.

    124. Re:How is this legal? by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      Unhappy with what the union leadership and/or negotiating committee did? Then run for a position and/or be part of the negotiating committee next time. Simple solution.

    125. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher
      I also fixed that for you.

      You must be American. Having worked in countries with unions and without them, I can unequivocally say that the pay rate is higher where you have unions.

      Before or after the union dues are paid? In my experience while the gross wages are higher the non-union employees tend to have the higher take home pay in the end.

    126. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions can be a force for worker rights. They can also be equivalent to a pack of leaches, sucking the employees blood and providing nothing useful in return. A family member is part of a union, and he'd love to get rid of them. They take several hundred dollars out of every paycheck and last time a significant issue came up between the employees and the employer the union put out their hand demanding several hundred dollars an hour and expenses to come down and mediate. Like all things there needs to be a balance, and a choice, otherwise complacency & corruption become the norm.

    127. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This good solution to one of the big hang-ups I have with unions (used to work in a union shop) their current setup to me encourages a level of mediocrity. Why is the guy that's sleeping on the job not getting fired and getting the same pay and benefits as the guy busting his ass working hard. That guy busting his ass then decides why am I working so hard when this guy is sleeping it's a never ending cycle until everyone is doing just enough to get by.

      Unions will protect this employee no matter what because they don't want to give an inch to the company, even though the employee was sleeping.

    128. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher."

      "Right to Work" and "union busting" are two VERY different things. While your comment is not an explicit lie, it implies one.

      Actual "Right to Work" laws merely say you don't have to belong in a union to work somewhere. It doesn't say you can't. In fact, in many industries we see union and non-union employees working side-by-side in the same jobs.

      In this state, before Right to Work, lots of jobs were restricted: you either joined the union or you didn't work. That's not "protecting" anybody; the union becomes an elitist club and people are left without work (UNLESS, of course, they want to join the union which will take their dues and spend them on political candidates the employee loathes).

      Calling that "union busting" is misleading to the point of lying. Busting of union monopolies, more like.

    129. Re:How is this legal? by captbob2002 · · Score: 0

      so, other than that, how do you like Texas?

    130. Re:How is this legal? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how this can be legal - fees for withdrawals is basically a pay cut.

      In the absense of applicable laws governing the mechanism of payment, the fact that a mechanism of payment results in certain fees for the employee if they choose to use their pay in certain ways isn't illegal. OTOH, I'd expect that most jurisdictions inthe US have adopted some laws that might apply to this, given the former prevalanc eof the extreme form of this -- payment in company scrip only redeemable at face value in the company store (which had heavy markups) and, if redeemable for cash at all, only at a significant discount. (It might be noted that Wal*Mart was recently, in 2008, forced by the Mexican Supreme Court to stop employing that "extreme form" in Mexico, so its pretty clear that if there weren't barriers in the US to the extreme form, we'd still see it.)

      At the same time, I suspect this new form is deliberately designed in light of existing laws, though it may well be designed to push them right to the edge and get away with as much as possible (with some risk of getting struck down) rather than being designed to be legally safe for employers.

    131. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in states that don't engage in unions...wages are higher
      I also fixed that for you.

      You must be American. Having worked in countries with unions and without them, I can unequivocally say that the pay rate is higher where you have unions.

      Unions only live by sucking funds from workers, remember.

      And just were do the Union dues come from if not from the union member paycheck ?

      Unions are the workers. They don't suck from themselves, the suck from the companies.

    132. Re:How is this legal? by MTEK · · Score: 1

      That said, it is disgusting how the big banks seem to be gleeful about making money on the ignorance of poor people.

      In that sense, banks probably have as much remorse as state lotto officials. Being poor doesn't mean one is inherently bad at math. Many folks just don't take their finances seriously. What's the cure for that?

    133. Re:How is this legal? by bmk67 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In a lot of cases, you can't, even if there's a branch conveniently located nearby. I've seen banks that would charge a fee to cash a check drawn against that bank, because the check casher didn't have an account at that bank.

    134. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, there are a bunch of union grocery stores in my town. The one non-UCFW shop is more expensive than the others. Everyone involved is probably making something close to minimum wage, but the union members get health coverage.

    135. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take Wal-Mart for example. The problem is not that Wal-Mart doesn't have unions, it's that Wal-Mart relies on it's employees taking advantage of government welfare programs. If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

      The history of the early industrial revolution is just what this A.C. is advocating. People starved, were murdered, turned to organized crime to get what they needed. As wages drop the whole of the economy slows down and poverty increases. That is what is happening now.

      The suggestion that this is just the banks trolling for new ways to make money I'll accept at face value.

    136. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem that unions face is one of bad PR. When unions are going toe to toe with corporate giants, everyone cheers for the union, but many union rules pit the union and its membership directly against the supervisors and lower management. There then becomes the perception that the union protects the lazy workers against the poor hard-working supervisor (or other union members) who have to pick up the slack. That automatically creates an entire legion of people who are right at the beginning of their careers. Many of those young supervisors and mangers will eventually find their way into positions of policy making, and they wont forget how hard they had to work because the union protected people it had no business protecting. The end result is a large swath of the population willing to testify that unions are bad.

      That's only half true. I have worked at union shops and the gloss isn't so great when you see it from the other side.

      When I worked at UPS, two largish Teamster union guys stood on each side of me to make sure that when I trained an employee how to scan packages using the new wearable scanners that I didn't actually *touch* any packages. If I did, I had to give it to the worker to do the same thing. This was based on the rule that managers were not allowed to touch packages.

      I've seen more than a few work slowdowns caused by grievances. For example, one employee was fired because he was stealing packages. Another long timer was reprimanded for using the company copier to copy a college textbook (several hundred pages). His excuse was that he did it during the break and after hours.
      The local folks decided a work slowdown was necessary so that those two people could be re-hired at their original seniority.

      During a strike in the Nineties, two union guys knifed one of the replacement ("scab") workers.

      They also do things that were less controversial but where I understood their reasoning.

      For example, one union steward purposefully fell from a two step stile after informing management that it was shaky (i.e., one of the legs was about 1cm shorter than the others). It rocked slightly when stepping onto the meter high platform.

      In negotiations to control the union pension, they prevailed. I agree with their reasoning for wanting control of union employee pensions. Of course, some turned around and misused those very same funds.

      So, no, I don't disagree with all they do, but to paint them as anything more than another corporation looking to make a buck is wrong, I think.

      (and yes, I was a union member and a manager so have seen both sides)

    137. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Uh, yeah, so you must not be American, because the unions don't suck from companies, they do suck from you."

      I guess the first argument here would be that outrageous benefits and ridiculously lazy working conditions (and yes, I have seen that) DOES suck from companies.

      But even aside from that they still can, depending on the state. Not long ago, in my state, companies had to give employees' retirement benefits to the union... but the law was never updated to then remove the responsibility for that money from the company and put it on the unions. The result was that the unions got the money, and when they squandered the retirement money (which was far too often), it was the companies that had to make it up.

      Granted, that was something of a fluke in the law. But I wonder if other states had that problem too.

    138. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grade papers, perhaps but here in Ontario that is why they fight for spare sessions, PD days and such.

      As for tests, why do they continue to keep moving all tests towards multiple-choice? So they can just throw the cards into the scantron?
      Nothing tests your knowledge like selecting one answer out of 4 given, especially for subjects like math which at one point use to have a "show your work" requirement.

      I rented some property to a teacher for a while. She left at 7:45 and was home for 4:30 every day.

      What are Summer break, spring break, Christmas break spent doing? Many teachers in Ontario get summer jobs (related or unrelated to teaching) to subsidize their already generous income).

      A friend is a teacher in the US, after discussing what Ontario gives they became very envious. I guess that is what happens when you have the overly powerful teachers union and the political leaders all looking for election funding from them.

    139. Re:How is this legal? by keytoe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The banks are extremely 'poor hostile' - and why shouldn't they be? From the bank's perspective, people who don't carry a significant balance and live close to the edge are a huge risk with little reward. The Free Market would call this a rational decision.

      Of course, you pretty much have to have a bank account to get by these days without being picked up and shaken (like this story) for loose change once in a while. There are a plethora of examples of predatory practices aimed at those who can't quite get above the poverty line themselves. Because what are they going to do? They're going to shut up, pay the 15% fee and buy the diapers - finding themselves even further behind and trying to make it up next month.

      There's a pretty real barrier in this society that dissuades people under and near that line from ascending above it. And then the callous among us stand up and tell them to 'just get a bank account'.

    140. Re:How is this legal? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Besides, isn't this a form of a Truck System [wikipedia.org]? Which is illegal in many countries, but apparently not in the US.

      In most US jurisdictions (while there are federal labor laws, most labor law is state law) a simple truck/scrip system would illegal, but this seems to be designed to skirt around the provisions in the laws which are designed to prohibit such systems. (Particularly, its structured as a deposit into an account with a banking institution that the employee agrees to use.)

      So, it probably is technically legal -- or at least close enough to the boundary that those employing it might not unreasonably believe they can get away with it -- in some US jurisdictions, but not because those jurisdictions haven't prohibited truck systems, but because this is a new way of structure employment to have the effects of a truck system without the structural elements that have been prohibited because of past abuses.

    141. Re:How is this legal? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Is it still stupid, if the system is rigged? If you are told something, and it later turns out not to be true, is that your fault for believing what you were told? Should we all be cynical by default? Many business have tried to cheat me, repeatedly. Several times, I've had employers cheat me of my pay because they ran out of money, or so they claimed. They seem to think it's okay to not pay their employees, and not tell their employees the money has run out, because they themselves are really hurting. Hurting, I tell you. And after they got a whole free month of work out of me thanks to that, would I be so good as to work for them for free for just a little longer? The business will surely take off soon and they will be able to pay everyone's back pay. Riiight. Know what a sunk cost is, boss? Then there are the big monopolies. It's just amazing the crap they try to pull, and how predatory they are. AT&T is always making "mistakes" in the phone bill, and somehow the errors are always in their favor. But what am I to do, switch to one of the very few competitors, none of which are any better, or live without a phone? The power company tries to confuse customers with complicated billing choices, offering what seems to be a low rate (7 cents/kWh woohoo!) but then tacking on this "delivery" charge, and a "base" charge, and a minimum usage policy that causes discounts not to be applied in those months with nice enough weather that you didn't need A/C or heating. Once caught the power company scumbags double billing me and my landlord. Of course the landlord accused me first, but I had kept all the bills and so could show him that I had signed up for electricity right away like I was supposed to, and that I had paid every bill on time, in full. Banks are notorious. It's not just fees, it's crap like opting you in for a service that costs money, or changing the terms on accounts, like the time Bank of America abruptly tripled the minimum balance needed to have maintenance fees waived, and suddenly I'm paying $20 per month because my account balance isn't high enough. I really love the $6 per month if an electronic deposit is NOT made. I resent being forced to spend time on all this petty theft, or to let it go because my time is worth more than that, and the bastards know it.

      You show a remarkable lack of empathy for your own daughter. Why, I wonder, didn't you educate her better? Oh, right, she never listens to you.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    142. Re:How is this legal? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the laws, fire your representative. Most people bitching about big government and big business are the ones that vote for the (D) and (R) parties that support these things. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    143. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You just described "Right to Work" laws. That's what they do: make unions optional.

      Prior to the passing of Right to Work law here, I had a union job, and I hated it. The Union took their dues and did nothing in exchange. The manager of the company told me flat out that the company would treat employees better if it weren't for the union. But because the employees had unionized, by law you had to be a union member to work there.

      After they passed the law, things were different.

      As for public sector: after seeing it in action in our local government, I have come to the conclusion that public employees should not be allowed to unionize. Clerical workers should not have better wages and retirement packages than engineers.

    144. Re:How is this legal? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      What kind of weird banking system does your country have?

      In Germany a personal bank account usually (if not always) comes with an overdraft credit line. If you go over you get to pay the (high but not excessively high) credit fees but that's it - and you can't go over the contractually-specified limit. As for paying off the debt: You transfer money to your account. There is no confusion because it's your account. You have the account details. If it's been closed due to long-term non-payment the bank will have involved a collections agency who will tell you where to send the money to (although that case might require paperwork to clear your credit rating afterwards).

      I seriously can't comprehend how you can end up in a state where neither you nor the bank know how to pay off a debt you have with the bank. Can't be much of a bank, honestly...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    145. Re:How is this legal? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Without seeing what all was given on both sides that is a hard determination to make. My guess is that you are leaving other pertinent info out of the conversation.

    146. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking LCBO. What is the difference between an LCBO employee selling an age-restricted product (alcohol) vs some other chain selling cigarettes?

    147. Re:How is this legal? by YalithKBK · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      A lot of checking accounts require you to make a significant deposit to open them (like $500-$1000) even if you do not intend your balance to be anywhere near that. If you're living dollar to dollar, you can't save up that much money to even open a checking account to begin with.

    148. Re:How is this legal? by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone be "forced" to pay "actual market wages"?

      Employment is a contract.
      An employer has a job that needs done and is willing to pay someone x amount to do it.
      An employee accepts that amount as a agreeable exchange of their time, energy, knowledge and skillsets for that moment in time.
      The point at which either party no longer agree to that exchange, they renegotiate or have already agreed upon a pay raise structure based on metrics, time, whatever as part of employment. If this is no longer acceptable to both parties, either may terminate the contract. The employer must then fill that position (if it still exists) and the former employee may find a better match of exchange for their time/energy/knowledge/skillsets.

      If a group wishes to band together in some sort of voluntary collective bargaining agreement, good for them. I personally would never join one, but hey, it's their thing. Just don't expect or force a company to agree to work with a collective bargaining agreement. A company needs to have the right to say no. At the same time, things like blackballing and such are imo, naturally wrong and rightfully illegal, but employees have no claim to a given job, factory, other means of production unless otherwise otherwise given to them via shared ownership or something. Nor should they have the right to refuse other employees from taking up the abandoned jobs during a strike. You walk off the job for a strike, as an employer, i should be able to fire your ass and replace you with someone else. If there is no one willing to do the job at the employer's valuation of that job, the employer must then revaluate that position or not fill it.

    149. Re:How is this legal? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way.

      Thus violating both the First Amendment and various human right treaties by denying union members their right to assemble and petition the government. But that's a small price to pay for keeping the dirty peasants from getting uppity with their lords, amirite?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    150. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " If you look at states which have collective bargaining versus right to work states, the income is markedly higher in the collective bargaining states. The main exceptions are states that have large amounts of oil."

      First, that is a false dichotomy: right-to-work states STILL have collective bargaining. All the right to work law does is say that you DON'T HAVE TO belong to a union to work somewhere. It doesn't say you can't.

      Second, according to the source posted just a bit above here by someone else, the average difference is 4%. Perhaps significant, perhaps not. For one thing, that 4% doesn't take union dues into account. A higher wage doesn't make much difference if you just turn around and pay it out in dues anyway. Of course, that would not be 4%. More like 1%. Still, the point is that 4% is not a great deal, and the actual difference in take-home may be a bit smaller.

      Another matter is that all the studies to date have only studied correlation. Real evidence of causation is notably absent.

    151. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees. In union shop states, all that's different is that certain kinds of contractual stipulations are legal if agreed to by both parties.

      Right to work is still fundamentally a revocation of rights.

    152. Re:How is this legal? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      That money is taken from workers accounts.

    153. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "What evidence do you have that show they rarely help improve anything? When I worked for Verizon Telecom/Frontier the union made sure our wages were above that of similar jobs in the area. They made sure our benefits were great. My union also went to bat if an employee's performance was deemed "less than satisfactory" and would look at the situation (it was a customer service/sales position that tried to sell inferior products at a rate far more expensive than competitors with crappier service) before management would cull the herd of sales people who didn't lie or leave out details like "this is a 2 year contract". There are plenty of good unions out there and I speak from experience."

      If you want to sling anecdotes, I have a relative who went to work for Verizon a few years ago. He is an experienced manager and ex-Army Captain who managed troops in Iraq.

      He could not stand the place. He said the employees were idiots, the workplace rules ridiculous, and management the most ridiculous of them all. He quit after a month. (BTW, he is an excellent manager himself and is now general manager for a fairly prestigious but not huge company.)

      And then of course there is the famous Verizon "I don't understand the difference between $0.01 and $0.0001" debacle. The fact that they didn't get it even when the issue was escalated through several layers of management is telling.

    154. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Few people are willing to accept that part of the automotive industry issues was due to its unions and their inability to be flexible.

      Some car isn't selling well, just keep making it to keep the guys working and use some profit off another to even things out. Do this enough times and you have a serious issue.

      The other problem with the big three is their pension requirements. Their market share was falling, and they had less and less workers paying into the pension plans but you cant touch the plans and eventually something has to give.

      To your point about UFCW, you know the unions need to make a profit as well right?

      Just wait and see if bill C-377 passes. Might be interesting to see the salary details of some of these union heads. I'd bet we see a number in the >$400,000 range.

    155. Re:How is this legal? by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      That's great, think you can name something positive that unions have done in the last 50 years or so? Unions have been more self serving than benefiting to employees in recent times. The power struggle between employees and employers will never end. Employers will always look for ways to increase profits and payroll will always be the biggest expense. Employees will always want more for the work they do as they are the people that generate the profits for the companies they work for.

      The sad part is that when the workers loose a little bit of ground, Union people scream like it's the sign of the Apocalypse to justify their existence. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, I will fully support a union for fair working conditions and practices but I would hardly call current time working conditions as oppressive.

    156. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO because your daughter made mistakes that placed her in a situation, everyone else in that situation is an idiot? You must have been a great dad.

    157. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If your'e not happy being a worker bee in a union shop, you might be in a field where your aspirations will not be met. That's more or less my take on unions. They're good for certain fields, but not others."

      I tend to agree with this. But it still doesn't address the central issue: being forced to belong to a union in order to work somewhere.

      Maybe the job doesn't meet your aspirations, but maybe you need the money and want to work, even if only for a couple of years. What then?

      I, too, think unions still have their place in some situations. Being forced to belong to one? Not so much.

    158. Re:How is this legal? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      It's not embezzlement. It's either doing this or fail to do their jobs because management can't put into place decent policies.

      He is a good person, and this petty cash thing wasn't even related to the reason the other person got pissed at him.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    159. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Union Fees
      Union Dues
      Union Work Licenses

      hidden costs to keep your place in the Union controlled business.

      Moderate the Union so that if corruption starts, the person(s) doing the corrupting get serious Jail time, then do the same for the corporations that try to do shit like this. ie - find the asshats that decided on the pre-paid cards and send them to prison for grand theft.

    160. Re:How is this legal? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      The advantages of a union being? I am a project manager and I hire both union and non-union crews. There are good crews that are union and there are good crews that are non-union. Similarly there are bad crews from both types of shops. I'd rather pay extra to get a good union crew vs a crappy non-union one, but apples to apples, the non-union crews generally have a better attitude and more productivity.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    161. Re:How is this legal? by danbert8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can see the results of union representation in Michigan. How are those strong unions working out for Detroit? I don't think wages and standards of living are based on union strength. Texas isn't exactly a union friendly state and they are doing pretty well.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    162. Re:How is this legal? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, blame him for his union failing to do the only thing that they were good for, after paying them thousands of dollars over 29 years.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    163. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need legislation taking these things away from Republicans and Libertarians.

    164. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the country is?

    165. Re:How is this legal? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Workplace safety has improved because employers have found that it is more valuable to have healthy employees and that injuries have a huge cost associated with them. At least in my industry, safety is driven so hard from the top of the company that it actually frustrates the guys doing the dangerous work, union or not.

      As far as the working hours, what if an individual wants to work extra hours and overtime, but the union rules don't allow it. What exactly are "reasonable working hours"? Why should the workers be able to dictate what the most efficient and optimal working shift is?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    166. Re:How is this legal? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Clearly, there's something wrong with the American implementation.

      Agreed, and more so, there's something wrong with the current American implementation. Unions were much better in the beginning.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    167. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that when they are needed they do wonders but they can quickly overstep their bounds. The issues is that often times there is no balance, they fix the problem them start creating a whole new host of problems.

    168. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes. I know it's wrong to do that. I was contesting the false equivalence to worthless company scrip.

    169. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was the reason he was going to lose his job.

    170. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on jurisdiction and the category of work done- and whether you disclosed how they were getting paid well before acceptance and whether the fees dropped things below minimum wage, etc. or not.

      Minimum wage W2 jobs? Oh, yeah, it's quite illegal in places like Texas (in fact, there's a suit going on right now over this particular thing...).

      If you offered to eat the fees, it'd be legit. Hell, it might even be a win for all parties. Thing is...there's a LOT of cheap bastards out there that see dollar signs first and foremost and don't think about consequences. (For those idiots claiming it's capitalists, etc.- I see a lot more LIBERALS running "businesses" doing this sort of thing than Conservatives...so SPARE ALL OF US.)

    171. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how this can be legal - fees for withdrawals is basically a pay cut. I guess this is what you get when you believe unions are evil...

      And yet if you were to take your old-fashioned paycheck to pretty much any location other than the bank you have a checking or savings account with, what do you end up paying just to cash the damn thing?

      The exact same thing you're now questioning the legality of it.

      This may be strong-arm tactics to push prepaid cards as a form of payment, but let's not get under the illusion that everyone from banks to your local gas station haven't been charging "illegal" fees for decades now.

    172. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is all fine and good, but wont someone think of the poor bank executives?

      Some of these CEO's are barely making $10MM a year.

      Think of the hardships they deal with as they are driven to work daily by a company driver, and use the private bathrooms to avoid the public.

    173. Re:How is this legal? by Nerdfest · · Score: 0

      Clerical workers should not have better wages and retirement packages than engineers.

      Which is unfortunately what happens when unions are involved. People say "well, then maybe engineers should unionize". I'd hate to see what happened to innovation and responsibility over the long term if it happened to any large degree,

    174. Re:How is this legal? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      My Mom worked for a school district in a bad part of town as, in essence, a truant officer. She tracked down kids that weren't going to school and got the school the money for getting them back in. She earned more than double her salary, but that didn't stop the union from eliminating her position to "save money". Of course, they lost a ton of money because attendance dropped like a rock.

      Her father was a ringleader of the Fisher Body Plant strikes that are famous in union history, but by the end of her life, she was anti-union because they no longer did what they were originally designed for. Instead they donated all her dues to political causes she didn't agree with and then eliminated her job which was making the school a profit.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    175. Re:How is this legal? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Workplace safety has improved because employers have found that it is more valuable to have healthy employees and that injuries have a huge cost associated with them. At least in my industry, safety is driven so hard from the top of the company that it actually frustrates the guys doing the dangerous work, union or not.

      As far as the working hours, what if an individual wants to work extra hours and overtime, but the union rules don't allow it. What exactly are "reasonable working hours"? Why should the workers be able to dictate what the most efficient and optimal working shift is?

      Not every industry today (and certainly very few in the past) valued safety as highly as yours does, and you would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for why that changed so much in the 20th century aside from the pressure of Unions. But, you are welcome to try.

    176. Re:How is this legal? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Where and when I last, the union dues were below 7%, while the average union worker made more than 20% more than non-union workers. In addition, the union dues were tax deductible, making it a clear win.
      The money the unions took in would go to things like paying a portion of people's salaries and wages during strikes and lock-outs.

      Even the non-unionized workers benefited, by laws being passed ensuring minimum wages, minimum vacation time, rest periods, guaranteed maternity and paternity leaves, and other general welfare for workers that would never have come around if it weren't for the unions.
      Unions in the US may work differently, because they work within a framework where funnelling money upwards is so ingrained that it's done even in unions.

    177. Re:How is this legal? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      This is very informative. I seriously never thought about this scenario. Thanks.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    178. Re:How is this legal? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >So basically, you are happy to take all of the advantages of the union, but expect everyone else to pay for it.

      It really sucks, when you find yourself in a union (like the UAW) where retirees get to vote for officers. I was a electrician in the UAW, when I had a legit complaint that they refused to investigate. The reason they gave, was "we want all of the electricians to quit, so they have to renegotiate the entire contract." I cant vote that guy out of office, because he is looking out for the retirees, so they won't vote him out. It was a right to work state, so I quit paying in. Also the UAW did everything in their power to keep the contract up for vote, because I worked at a lower wage factory than the others, they didn't like that, even though the workers at the factory were happy with the pay. The right to work state allowed the company and workers to kick out the UAW. In a non right to work state the factory would have had to close.

    179. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you voted for the contract anyway. It's your own damned fault; your union reps and the contract they negotiated are voted on by you and your fellow union members.

    180. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that unions are generally needed to ESTABLISH those very laws.

    181. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The beauty of this situation in the US is that firing you would be retaliatory, and then you could sue for punitive damages.

    182. Re:How is this legal? by dywolf · · Score: 2

      The only one unions were demonstrably behind is the 8 hour work day.
      the rest are either shared credit (5 day week), or no credit (child labor).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    183. Re:How is this legal? by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      Here are a few things you can "blame" on Unions:

      Weekends
      40-hr work weeks
      Sick days
      Being able to live wherever you want, not just a company house
      No more child labor
      Benefits
      Fair hiring practices
      Fair promotion practices

      How true, and look at what has been happening recently...

      40-hr work weeks... Not anymore... Everyone is doing more work so that management doesn't need to hire anyone else. And they do it because of their fear for having any job at all. And if you are in IT like the majority of slashdot... good luck getting paid for your overtime.

      Sick Days... Mostly gone. Now many places are going to a combined Vacation/Sick/Personal day system. Every day you are sick is one less vacation day.

      Benefits... People never used to pay for Healthcare. Now if you want it, you are responsible for a greater share of it, as both a actual cost, and as a percent of the total. How many people are now on "Flex Benefits" which every benefit you want has a cost. (And the idiots who think they are actually benefiting by getting $50/month by dropping any/all benefits.)

      Fair Hiring Practices... H1B. Need I say more? Outsourcing, Off-shoring... All while MBAs get raises for brown nosing. Than of course then there is age discrimination to boot.

      Fair Promotion Practices... In IT, there used to be every year or two, most people would get a token promotion with a raise. Now it seems that the only way to get either (except in rare circumstances) is to quit and get a job somewhere else. Promotions into management? Good luck with that.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    184. Re:How is this legal? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      What you describe is not a PR or presentation problem. You are describing someone(s) seeing how unions operate and not liking it, because it is in fact wrong and bad.

      And in my mind you are focusing on the really not that bad stuff.
      Yes, there are loads of unions who promote lazy members and I do not think anyone likes the idea of seniority.
      But the real problem, just like for companies, is when they get complete monopolies. When you cannot work in an industry without joining one and paying your union taxes. When you cannot decide to work for a company because a union has decided to strike and they will make sure you are fired and can never work again.

      When a union not only makes work in general worse, but also takes rights and options ways from the average working Joe, just because they can. That is when they become intolerable.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    185. Re:How is this legal? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Well that was a non sequitor.

      Of course his unions sucked.

      They gave him shitty advice and it burned him.

      He still put himself in harm's way by giving his vindictive co-worker the perfect opportunity to retaliate.

    186. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this country also lack guns, knives, bludgeoning implements, pitchforks, fire, tar, or feathers? I tend to make it very clear to my employers that it is a very poor idea to fuck with my money.

    187. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK and what have unions done in the last 50 years?

    188. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about places like Ontario which want to pass union transparency laws (with great difficulty) over political campaign contributions among other issues.

      Lets say I like the union benefits and am willing to pay for, but don't like the union political campaign contributions which I'd rather not pay for. What if i want the other guy to win? I should be forced to pay for a candidate i don't want?

    189. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      Go ahead and try to find a branch located in a low-income neighborhood.

    190. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partial fail - 40 hour work weeks was Ford, who was notoriously anti-union.

    191. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S. if that happened, not only would that most likely be an admission of guilt by the company, but they'd get hit with even larger penalties. Also, you don't even need to file a lawsuit, you can anonymously inform the state or federal government who will make their life hell because no paid wages = no paid taxes and they don't like that.

    192. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're right, we should allow anybody to practice medicine and law without fear of oversight, need of education or licensing. After all, if you want to have that surgery performed by your neighbor in his kitchen, it would be absolute tyranny and ridiculous of the government to step in and limit your freedom to do so. /pat's opie on the head and hands him a liberty lollipop.

    193. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees."

      ... because the unions are not the employers.

      The practical difference is this, and I've experienced it myself so you can't tell me otherwise: in non-right-to-work states, you can be forced by unions to be a union member in order to get a job somewhere. In right-to-work states, the union can't force you to be a member in order to get a job.

      So whose "rights" are more important in practice? The rights of the union, or the rights of the worker?

      While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.

    194. Re:How is this legal? by thsths · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is, or at least it is a slippery slope. First checks, then prepaid cards, then amazon coupons, and finally food stamps, Hallmarks gift cards or canteen credit. Where does it end?

      My first job actually paid 1.50 per month for holding a bank account. I think my bank account was free, but it was a nice gesture. You also had the option to queue and get paid in cash...

    195. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the 40 hour week was a capitalist decision to increase productivity by Henry Ford:
      http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-workers-get-40-hour-week

    196. Re:How is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Cherry picking the worst union state and the best non-union state does not a valid argument make. As I said there are exceptions, but as a general rule it's better to live in a state where there are strong unions than one where there aren't any.

      Unions raise the wages paid for jobs covered by their union, even on non-union sites that have to convince their workers not to organize. Unions also fight to raise the standards for the jobs they represent.

      So, yes, Unions do have a positive impact beyond just those jobsites and by and large you'll find far more states where there's a positive impact than negative impact.

    197. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics, you have none. The world's largest economy and richest (top 5 per capita) country has one of the lowest rates of union membership.

    198. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this one of those "equal pay for equal work" or a real equal pay for real equal work (as in the same job).

      Our telco was hit with one of these. They determined that a linesman (mostly men) was equal work to a switchboard operator (mostly women) and should be paid the same.

      Not really sure how they are equal. One sits inside answering operator calls, the other climes poles and fixes broken lines all year round.

    199. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 40-hour week and no work on Saturdays is a result of the Great Depression. Employers cut back their employees' time in order to avoid layoffs. Benefits packages are a result of wage and price controls put in place for WWII. Employers had to compete for the best employees based on something other than wages, so they competed with benefits. And what's "Fair"? Only hiring and promoting union workers?

    200. Re:How is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not really, right to work states don't have collective bargaining in any reasonable fashion. Sure it probably technically exists, but if unions can't prevent non-union workers from working on the site, then it's pretty hard for them to really negotiate as the employer holds all the cards.

      You do realize that unions lobby for changes in legislation that benefit everybody, right? Not just on union job sites.

      As for the 4%, I'm skeptical of that, I was making far more than that working for a union employer versus the rate for a non-union employer. And I know that the union drivers at the site were making even more with respect to the other drivers as well.

      Ultimately, you do have to admit that it's a rather suspicious situation where pretty much all the welfare states are right to work states and pretty much all of that money is coming from states with decent unions.

    201. Re:How is this legal? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Except if you compare private sector wages in right-to-work vs. collective bargaining states. GDP per capita differences are all over the place, but in states that don't engage in union busting, wages are higher.

      Normally I'd give you a [citation needed] but in this case, I don't care whether or not you pulled that little factoid out of your arse. That was easily the worst piece of analysis that I've seen in a long time.

      1. GDP per capita is not the same as income
      2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.

      Cheers!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    202. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, what right to work says is that unions can't form private contracts about the terms of hiring employees."

      ... because the unions are not the employers. ...

      Well, duh. Of course the union isn't the employer. They're a group whose purpose is to represent, and negotiate on behalf of, the *EMPLOYEES*. So, why shouldn't the employees be allowed to negotiate certain aspects of their employment agreements through a group founded for that very purpose?

    203. Re:How is this legal? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      For starters, any full time teacher works AT LEAST 40 hours. There's a lot more work than just in the classroom. Now, you can argue that they don't work all year (unless they teach summer school too) but 40 hours...easily.

      Also, the only reason workers feel comfortable with tell their boss that they will quit is that they have a union that helps cover them during the strike and organizes all of it. NOBODY is going to risk losing their house on a whim. It has to be well organized and the negotiation has to be properly managed. Otherwise, it's trivial for employers to manipulate employees into folding. Sorry dude but this shit is all well documented. Maybe you should consider studying history some time instead of browsing the internet.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    204. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, that's an option (that costs money to use). The default is that you get nailed with an overdraft fee on the order of $50+ for *each* transaction which hits after the initial overdraft.

      Back when I was in college (working part time to pay my rent), I wrote 4 checks, and overdrew my account because my paycheck hadn't 'hit' yet (despite being deposited, in person, 3 days earlier). I got nailed with over $150 in overdraft fees. After going to the bank in person to complain, they told me that they reordered the transactions so that the large transaction hit first as a 'convenience service'. What it meant was that instead of getting tagged with *one* overdraft fee, I got tagged with 3. This was on a total overdraft of $14 and change.

      Shortly after that, I got into the habit of cashing my paychecks, and depositing the cash. The cash deposit hit my account instantaneously, rather than having to wait 10+ days for the money to hit my account when I deposited the paycheck. (Despite US law saying it *can't* take that long to process a check.)

    205. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hostess went out of business because they had 7 CEOs in the past 11 years. Each with their own golden parachute. Do you honestly think any of them were steering the boat?

      Come on dude, the wiki page is RIGHT THERE

      By December 2011, it was reported that Hostess Brands was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy a second time due to financial problems. The company stopped paying future pension benefits after August, thereby breaking its union contracts.[22] According to a Hostess worker at the time, "We understand that, should we pursue some form of legal action to require the company to live up to the terms of the contract, they may close, but we have come to believe that they will close anyway. We believe the company is poorly managed and the only hope is a complete change in management."[22]

      The union fired all the bosses. The bakery's are still there. They still need bakers. Whoever buys them will probably have to deal with people who will unionize. All in all it was probably a smart move by the union.

      And yeah, unions can be good or evil, but this is not an example of an evil union screwing the pooch and getting the factory demolished.

    206. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I had to throw a fit once to *close* my account at 5/3 Bank because I'd opened it at a different branch in the *same state*. It was physically impossible at the time for me to be *at* the original branch during the hours when it was open, because it was only open while I was physically at work.
      (Bank Hours: 10:00a-4:00p Mon-Fri; Work Hours: 8:30a-5:00p Mon-Fri)

      It was more than half an hour away from where I worked at that point, so I couldn't even make it during my 30-minute lunch break.

    207. Re:How is this legal? by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      "You don't need unions to get fair treatment. The employees just need to get together and tell the boss if they don't get paid properly they're all quitting."

      Obliviousness must be a wonderful gift.

    208. Re:How is this legal? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I said there are exceptions, but as a general rule it's better to live in a state where there are strong unions than one where there aren't any.

      Better for whom? The union-protected workers who know the union will leap to their defense if they screw off on the job, or the people who have to pay the union workers to get something done?

      I used to go to trade shows in Atlantic City. That's the epitome of a "strong labor union" area. We had a display that needed to be set up after the boxes it came in were delivered, and then the boxes needed to be taken away. We had electrical equipment that needed power. Getting all this done required the benevolence of half a dozen unions. I say "benevolence" because if we dared to plug something in ourselves the other unions would react in solidarity with the electrical union and we'd get things done -- next week, maybe, maybe later. After the show was over. If we dared to try to put up our own display, same problem. Chairs? Well, the chair moving union didn't like us moving chairs without involving them. At union rates. (I was on a TV set one time and a chair needed to be moved about a foot to the left, so I moved it. You'd think a nuclear bomb was about to go off, all the consternation and brouhaha that went on. I did a stage hand's job! And I wasn't a stage hand! The HORRORS! I would have asked the union guy standing next to me to do it, but he was an electrician and he doesn't move chairs.)

      The expense of going to that show was outrageous, and most of it was due to union wages for people to do menial tasks. And to pay for the union reps who did nothing else but watch to make sure nobody did anything a union worker had to be paid to do.

      Unions raise the wages paid for jobs covered by their union,

      Pray tell, what is the current value of someone plugging in an extension cord, compared to the union wage of the two people required to do that task? How about the cost of having to wait until they can be found and pleaded with to pretty please come plug this in and get the job put on the schedule for later that afternoon? And what is the expense to the public when the 'extension cord plugger in' union goes on strike and all the others go out in support so that nothing can be done, and if anything is done someone will come around and cut up your extension cord because you used scab labor to plug it in?

      Some unions do some good things. Some unions take it to extremes and cost us all a lot more money. Unfortunately, the unions that need the most protection are the ones who do the most ridiculous things in the name of protecting their members.

    209. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Australia many of the top professions (lawyers, doctors and the like) are both union shops and closed shops. The professional bodies set the rules and decide how many people to allow in.

      Funny though, these bodies are never called unions

      That's because they aren't 'unions', they are 'guilds'. The key difference is that guilds enforce a proficiency requirement and will sanction their own members for incompetence. Unions only kick people out for not paying membership fees.

    210. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of these are accurate, but some of them are a joke. Hiring and promotions with unions are about the worst thing around. Seniority is a ridiculous concept.

    211. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all of those gains came 100+ years ago... What have they done recently other than drive costs up so high that off-shore manufacturing looks like a better deal?

    212. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      1. GDP per capita is not the same as income

      Duh, that was the point of that statement. Thank you for pointing out that entirely true fact.

      2. Whether or not employees can be forced to join a union is not the only variable affecting income levels. Because you have not isolated that variable, your statement is meaningless.

      Cheers!

      Ah, but if you look at the link I've posted elsewhere in this thread, methodological tactics to isolate the phenomenon from other factors, like location and industry, enhance it's apparent effect by several percent.

      So... your objects are poorly considered.

    213. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      While what you say might be technically correct, it also misses the real issue by a country mile.

      Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees.

    214. Re:How is this legal? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Union won't cover embezzlement? Oh deary me, how cruel.

      How is keeping petty cash on hand for things that need to be done quickly "embezzlement"? The money isn't stolen.

      This is, however, a wonderful example of a fine union acting in the best interests of the dues-paying members. Hmph.

    215. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because it's taking company funds without proper due diligence. If it's an approved practice, then it goes on the books. If it's not, then its embezzlement. How is the company supposed to know they didn't take any for personal reasons?

    216. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the sad old story. A century of gains to pay and conditions due to the hard work and often militancy of unions. Then everyone gets comfortable in the 80s ,decide reagans right and the unions are evil, and its all fine and dandy until the economy crashes and suddenly everyones up shit creek without a paddle because they abandoned the unions and theres no one left to stand up to this crap. Our chickens have come home to roost.

      Okay, let's all go back to the unions and support what the unions are standing for. So now we have a union of all American workers. The first thing we do is get rid of the Jews. Fucking Jews. Hitler had the right idea about them. Then we impose a tax on all white union members to be paid to African American and Latino union members until there is social justice. Individual African Americans are allowed to collect this tax themselves from any whites of their choosing, and may take as much as they want as often as they need until they feel like they have social justice. If you're a Latino with a fucking Jewish sounding name like 'Zimmerman', you're considered white. In the interest of feminism, the daughters of union members will be educated in sexual liberation so that they may serve the needs of the all-male union leadership. To maintain the moral integrity of the workforce, the use of tobacco is strictly prohibited while the use of any other drug is allowed and encouraged.

      Once the union is strong and ready to act, we will mobilize the union membership to support our own wartime enemies. We will not take the side that there should not be war. We will take the side that we should not fight back. We will falsely malign our own forces as occupiers, murderers, and war criminals. We will deny, dismiss, and ignore any reason for supporting our own side, and we will accept and repeat all enemy claims regardless of whether they are true or not. If the enemy is bad at making propaganda, we will invent our own reasons to justify supporting them.

      Once we have sufficiently undermined public support for our government and its capitalist system of laws originating from the common people, we will uphold the union as the sole source of law and establish the union leadership as the sole legitimate government of the people. Because the union leadership assures us that the union leadership has the best interests of the worker in mind, no other system of government is acceptable. Once the union leadership has full control of the economy, their benevolence will lead us into a new age of prosperity!

      What, you want to know what plans will affect the worker? You aren't right-wing, are you?

      We have a few things in mind. Nobody will be allowed to work for less than the minimum of what the fairly-well-off union leaders would be willing to work for, so everybody will be making a lot of money. All businessmen will be taxed increasing amounts until the average unskilled worker makes as much money or more as the average employer. Cars will be restricted to union leadership only because cars pollute so much and we can't understand why people drive cars so much when they can just bike anywhere. The capitalist concept of money will be replaced by a system of credits that represent the value of work. No, none of us have studied economics; that is an inherently capitalist doctrine.

      tl;dr: The left in the US has gone so fucking nuts that it's in the interests of the working class to vote Republican!

    217. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are a few things you can "blame" on Unions:

      Loss of the US manufacturing base
      Unsustainable pension obligations
      Insufficient investment in manufacturing automation
      Financial collapse of the American car industry
      Massive taxpayer-funded subsidized-interest loans
      Prevention of Congressional lobby reform.

    218. Re:How is this legal? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      You are also forgetting getting paid in company minted currency only good at the company store.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    219. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Project is late, nobody gets paid until you deliver.

      You go into a restaurant. You order food. No food arrives. An hour later, the restaurant demands you pay them. They explain, "This is a union restaurant. We get paid on schedule no matter when we deliver."

    220. Re:How is this legal? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      My father was a union member and always told me that it was "protection money"--if you didn't pay union dues, the Union goons would kill you.

      And my dad is living off a nice pension after putting in his years, which is better than pretty much anyone I know has to look forward too. A couple years back his 401k lost half its value, basically overnight, while his pension remained strong. Right now he's retired and comfortable, he doesn't have to worry about finding a job, or working until the day he dies. Thanks to unions. He also had seniority, a choice in shifts and hours, decent healthcare, and the ability to protect himself from his bosses (which came in handy many times). He also made a comfortable living wage doing blue collar work (driving a truck), which has pretty much died in America.

      Unions ARE the workers, workers VOTE for their representatives, thus have responsibility for their good or bad deeds.

      This isn't too say they are all good, obviously. Unions can lead to some nastiness, and some nasty people lurk in unions. My father got screwed out of a couple years because his boss (friends with the local union heads) didn't register his dues, pocketing them. His boss was his brother, which made things a bit worse. Unions can crush industries, since they forget that they need these industries to survive, as much as industry needs workers to survive.

      That said, I'm a fan or workers protecting themselves against corporations. It is a good, and natural, power relation. You control my livelihood, and I control your ability to make a profit.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    221. Re:How is this legal? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      few things more annoying then standing in a line and watching the cashier perform minimum wage work, but earning a fat union premium which I am paying for in higher prices.

      How dare they make a living wage doing hard work!? I'm sorry some of your purchase price went to funding sane working conditions, though. I'm not sure how you live with it... Short of shopping somewhere else, obviously. I honestly don't get annoyed when cashiers make more money, or are happier than the ones down the road.

      My happiness with your service isn't proportional to the misery of your employees. Generally happy employees make happy customers. Go to a Costco, QT, or In-n-Out burger, and compare the experience to a shop that doesn't pay a decent wage and offer promotions and benefits.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    222. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the unions are nominally on the side of workers

      And in Animal Farm, Napoleon was nominally on the side of the animals.

    223. Re:How is this legal? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Few people are willing to accept that part of the automotive industry issues was due to its unions and their inability to be flexible.

      I've noticed the opposite, the people want to blame it ALL on unions, and not pass any responsibilities to the industry.

      The fall of Detroit was partly the unions being idiotic, and forgetting that their industry needs to be healthy for the unions to be healthy. This is due, in part, to crooked elements in the unions, and also to general human nature being short-sighted and egocentric. The companies also failed to adapt to changing markets, though, which dug them a pit. Detroit was full of slow dinosaurs, that didn't see the change coming. The Unions just helped drag them down, but the actual sinking lies squarely in the industries hands.

      Same with the current crop of bailouts they needed, the American auto industry is just stupid, since they pretty much repeated what happened in the '70s, to the same effect, but without unions to blame.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    224. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      • Weekends
      • 40-hr work weeks
      • Fair hiring practices
      • Fair promotion practices

      i have no idea what dreamworld you'r living in but
      - weekends? they used to exist. but if work call and "asks" you to come in on saturday you better do it or it'll affect any kind of future raise of promotion
      - 40hr work weeks? right... that's been out the window since last decade
      - fair hiring practices? sure. it's very fair the cheapest candidate willing to work at 1/4 the pay as it's more "cost effective" for the business. that's fair right? they're not skilled? we'll just hire 3 of them and still be better off
      - fair promotion? it's not what you know, but who you know. so even if you're a complete fuck up, as long as you know the right person then you'll see your own "fair" promotions

    225. Re:How is this legal? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You'll have to excuse parent, he's been drinking the "All-Unions-Are-Exactly-The-Same-As-The-AFL-CIO-Mobsters" Koolaid.

      Personally, I was once a member of the GMP Union - it was the best-paying job I ever had, and the beer we made bottles for was and is still dirt cheap, in spite of the fact they're union-made.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    226. Re:How is this legal? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, growing up, my dad made more money, had health insurance and other benefits, and actual vacation and sick leave when working for a union. When doing the *exact same work* for a non-union shop. the owners seemed to be the only ones making any money.

      But yeah, sure, unions are always *teh evilz*! Don't let that conservative-manufactured boogeyman get you!

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    227. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay scale if not what irks me as an unionized professional.
      The real problem with our union is management laziness/lack of courage/stupidity with regard to lazy/incompetent employee.
      Our collective agreement have a well defined procedure to sanction an employee, however, it requires the manager to submit a well documented "dossier" and since it is an RH matter, the manager must write the "dossier" himself and almost no one does.
      Once I saw a manager use the correct procedure with the correct paperwork and, lo and behold it worked, the lazy sob was fired. !!! However, that boss boss's did not like it; first he was the one who hired that moron, and second, a middle manager showing initiative look dangerous to upper management. Eventually the good the manager was transferred to another service with a bad review. That review did not came from the union, it came from his boss...

    228. Re:How is this legal? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      The problem arises when unions decide that that collective bargaining power is not enough, and that they need to resort to lobbying the state/government to give them protection/favors.

      Yea, just look at all the damage that pesky Constitution and the Bill of Rights has caused to profits! How dare those unions express their unalienable right to petition the government for redress of grievances!

      FWIW, the real problem with unions is the same problem with any sufficiently large organization of people, corporations and governments included: The people at the top, running the show, start getting greedy.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    229. Re:How is this legal? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the voters in your union that approved that agreement were dumbasses. Either that, or you're leaving out a lot of other details to make it sound like an absolutely terrible contract.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    230. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience hiding income is mostly done by the wealthy.

    231. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you attend and vote to union meetings ? If you don't, shame on people like you and if you did participate and try to get that particular point overturned and people voted against you : you have a fucked top union !!! See union are democratic, to work they requires voters participation. Without voters year round implication, you get corruption just like you get in any other democratic institutions where voters apathy is high...

    232. Re:How is this legal? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      You phrased it badly then. It has some characteristics similar to company scrip, but it is more akin to a tax on the employees that the banks/business profit from.

    233. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are tens of thousands of stories of unions protecting people being wrongly fired and disciplined. Your friends co-coworkers situation likely involved some sort of malfeasance or they wouldn't have advised he resign. The union shouldn't and likely won't go to bat for an employee who isn't being targeted for invalid reasons. Their job is to protect you from employer injustice, not yourself.

    234. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said it yourself ". . .my union". Why would you do that to yourself? Either everyone else in your union is a chump or there is more to the story.

    235. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure a large percentage of these whiners also complain about hellish working conditions at Foxxconn, Indonesia, Nike etc.

    236. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      In addition to what others have said about bounced checks and the like, sometimes it just comes down to cultural norms. In the ESPN documentary, "Broke," a number of the athletes interviewed talked about how unprepared they were to deal with any large sum of money. Growing up where they did, no one had bank accounts, so no one knew anything about them. One player mentioned that he cashed his first checks (6-figures worth) at a check cashing establishment because that's the only way he knew to turn it into money. Those of us that grew up financially literate (not responsible, just literate) parents and role models find that astounding, but when you only know one way of doing something, you do it regardless of how wrong it actually is.

    237. Re:How is this legal? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Sick days? What are those? We just went from having two weeks paid vacation and however many sick days you need, to two weeks of total Paid Time Off, including vacations AND sick days.
      Benefits? Benefits are not a benefit, except to the employer. They get to tie you to a plan so that you are reluctant to leave and go elsewhere. And in many cases, who pays for the supposed "benefit"? You!. You could get the same "benefits" for cheaper individually.
      Weekend? Ah, yes. Weekends are nice. It is great to be away from the company for a couple of days so I can get some work done without people constantly coming into my office. If it wasn't for weekends, I wouldn't be able to get done with all the work my company expects of me. After all, there is only so much you can get done working only 12 hour days during the week.
      40 hour work weeks? Maybe the first three days of the week. But there are still 4 more days you have to work.
      Fair Hiring practices? Nope. Nepotism reigns supreme, except when they are related to a worker bee.
      Fair Promotion Practices? Nope. Only those who are related to the bigwigs get promoted. Or those whose skills are so poor that they won't be missed in their current position. If you are good at your job, then there you will stay, until your dying day. If a higher up position becomes available, they will hire someone external with no idea how the operation works.
      But, I guess I have to concede that there is no more child labor (except for the scam magazine and newspaper subscription companies, and the fundraising industry). And you also don't have to live in a company house anymore, but that is just because they don't want to provide you with one or back your mortgage, because then they wouldn't get their money back when they fire you.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    238. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "living wage"?

      There are skilled jobs and skilled worker rates and there are unskilled jobs with unskilled pay.
      Then there is the union to skew the supply/demand line.

      I grew up in a union town (GM). The stories of guys milking the system will make you sick, >$70K to sweep the floors?
      That is a "living wage" for a "high skill" job to you?

      I should pay more for my car because the guy needs a "living wage" to sweep the floors? How about they get a better education and a better job rather then demanding "living wages" from unskilled tasks?

    239. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be the stupidest thing I've ever read. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      Unions may do bad, but on the greater whole they do good, by a factor that outweighs the bad significantly.

      It's your kind of logic that pro-business/anti-employee penny pinchers use to paint a scary future where evil unions are ruining everything. The reality is that the scenario you refer to hardly ever happens.

    240. Re:How is this legal? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Statistics, you have none. The world's largest economy and richest (top 5 per capita) country has one of the lowest rates of union membership.

      You wish.
      USA is not in the top 5 per capita - it's #6 according to the IMF, #8 according to the World Bank, and #9 according to CIA.

      Both Luxembourg and Norway are strongly unionized - I don't know enough about Qatar, Singapore, Brunei and Hong Kong to say.

      It's also rather irrelevant, as one incredibly rich person and a hundred poor ones can have a higher gdp per capita than a country with more equality. Which the unions bring to the table. It's not how much money is produced per capita in a country that makes it good to live in - because often that just means that a few gets to live in luxury while the rest live in poverty (which I suspect is the case with Brunei and Qatar). What matters is Median Joe's parity after all his necessary expenses, including both disposable income and time to spend it.

    241. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. This is for a short time. And credit unions will still give you accounts. They may ask for a minimum balance of a $200 which maybe why some aren't getting accounts. But if you aren't maintaining $200 in rain money then I doubt you are getting paid in these cards. If you are, and you can't maintain $200... we got bigger issues.
      2. ??? This isn't true. Yes, a court can do this to you, but then you just go have someone or you withdraw the money if you ever get arrested.
      3. A-T-Ms don't keep hours.
      4. Yes, there are lots of fees. But Credit Unions don't have a lot, and they are simple. It's call discipline. If counting money was 2nd grade, CUs are 3rd. Honestly, if people are getting paid in these cards... then they shouldn't be looking at a bank, but rather a local credit union.
      5. Location can be an issue, but there are a LOT of credit unions all over. And all you really need is access to an ATM. And Publix, QuickMart, and others have FREE ATMs. What more do you need?

    242. Re:How is this legal? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      how is it criminal, and how would it be criminal in an ideal free market?

      this is equivalent to 1) changing payment processor and 2) cutting wages slightly. unless part (2) takes one below the state-mandated minimum wage (which, btw, wouldn't exist in a free market), i don't see where the crime is.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    243. Re:How is this legal? by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at what they are doing now. According to the CAW the problem is not that their wages are too high, its that the dollar is too high. No talk about how to adapt to a changing environment, instead ask the government to look at how to lower the dollar to make Canadian wages competitive. There are a lot of problems, but i feel a big part of managements may have been they chose not to get into a battle with the union for much needed flexibility. GM could have screamed at the to of their lungs they need to change. Union rhetoric would have been that you are making money and just trying to cheat us. Look at Daewoo Motors for a recent example of this. Given a choice of layoffs or bankruptcy the union opted to call the bluff and take a "no layoffs" position. There is zero trust between management and the union which only compounds the problems.

    244. Re:How is this legal? by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.

      1, if they've written bad checks, the bank simply won't give them an account. 2, when your money is in the bank, it can be easily taken without your consent - various kinds of debt, credit agencies, lawyers, even the feds. Cash money in hand (or hidden wherever), much harder for third parties to access, hence, you can live easier when in trouble. 3, banks keep shitty hours: when you need your money in the evening and you can't get it, that can be a problem when the issue at hand is diapers, etc. 4, even when "free", make an error (common with low income types), and the bank will hose you with a huge fee (or fees... they can be pretty tricky about things like the order they cash/bounce when you overdraw. 5, location can be an issue if you're not mobile. There's probably more than this too; these were just off the top of my head.

      I think that money being taken from someone without their consent was demonstrated in a Will Smith movie. He ended up eventually becoming a stock broker.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    245. Re:How is this legal? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      True. Teachers work more than 40 hour weeks. But they're salaried not hourly, so they work long enough to get the job done. They may have to pay for some school supplies out of their own pocket. And then have to take extra jobs in the summer, such as summer school teaching, just to make ends meet.

    246. Re:How is this legal? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They were going to oust the Hostess workers anyway. They'd have been better to just resign and get a head start on the next job, which is what some of workers in other plants did. The owners only wanted it to limp along until they found a buyer for the name, and the union just wanted to make some political points.

    247. Re:How is this legal? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Many modern unions aren't really putting all their weight into protecting workers. That 2-5% of pay basically gets them a negotiator once every few years, and the negotiator probably doesn't even know the workers or know their needs and sometimes doesn't even communicate with the workers during negotiations. They are mostly a dues collecting organization these days.

    248. Re:How is this legal? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that unions aren't being run and represented by the actual workers much anymore. Instead there are professional union people to do things on behalf of the workers; profressional organizers, professional negotiators, professional union administrators. So since they're not the workers anymore they are naturally out of touch with what workers want or need. The national unions like to have a one size plan for everyone.

    249. Re:How is this legal? by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      You don't need unions to protect you from that. You need enforcement of the contracts that you signed with your employer. That's something, you know, that we all expect the "government" to do. If your government is not doing that, then I suggest you call them out on it.

      Or better yet, just quit. And make it well known why you quit. You're already 1 month behind in pay... How bad does it have to be before you are actively forced to do something about your problem? 4 months? 8? When you're starving and can't pay rent? If a company gets a reputation for not paying employees on time, no one will want to work there, not even for the first month. Watch how quickly their opinion changes when that happens.

    250. Re:How is this legal? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      And of course, union dues aren't basically a pay cut.

    251. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good luck to anyone trying to negotiate higher pay.

      As a collective force in a variety of industries it is possible because of group organizing through unions. Most tech folks aren't unionized so I don't expect a lot of support on slashdot for unions.

    252. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I rest my case. Unions are bad. More child labour!

    253. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Not really, right to work states don't have collective bargaining in any reasonable fashion. Sure it probably technically exists, but if unions can't prevent non-union workers from working on the site, then it's pretty hard for them to really negotiate as the employer holds all the cards."

      There are NEARLY (but admittedly not quite) as many unions in my state now as there were before it became a Right to Work state. I won't speak for other states, but for mine, this is just plain BS.

      The ONLY practical difference now is that you are not REQUIRED to belong to a union to work somewhere. A great many still do anyway. As a side-effect, it is true that the unions are not as powerful, in the sense that they can no longer command you to be a member in order to work. But hey... monopolies are un-American anyway, so why should I care?

      "As for the 4%, I'm skeptical of that, I was making far more than that working for a union employer versus the rate for a non-union employer. And I know that the union drivers at the site were making even more with respect to the other drivers as well."

      The 4% came from a study someone linked to above. Be as skeptical as you like. But complain to them, not to me.

      "Ultimately, you do have to admit that it's a rather suspicious situation where pretty much all the welfare states are right to work states and pretty much all of that money is coming from states with decent unions."

      My state is certainly not a "welfare state". It pays for itself quite well.

    254. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Not where I'm sitting. The employer can and does put all sorts of unreasonable restrictions in contracts it forms with employees, but unions cannot do the same thing on behalf of employees. It's about screwing employees."

      Well, my experience with a union was exactly the other way around. It was the union screwing employees AND the company.

    255. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40-hr work week - yeah good job there. Haven't had one of those in 15 years.

    256. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belive most states did this to welfare/TANF recipients some time ago. And there wasn't a great scream of protest then, so maybe it serves the rest of us right.

    257. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so now your overtime pay is normal. Your example certainly shows how terrible unions are.

    258. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manager of the company told me flat out that the company would treat employees better if it weren't for the union.

      AKA "malfeasance". When your response to something is to throw a temper tantrum and say "I'll show you", usually it would have been better all around if you had just shut up and done it right the first time around.

      It reminds me of the companies dropping the insurance they were already providing because obamacare makes them provide insurance or pay a fee for not doing so, then whining about how obamacare is forcing them to drop the policy instead of just manning up and saying "we didn't feel like spending the money anymore and obama gave us a convenient excuse for unilaterally renegotiating the terms of everyone's employment".

    259. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work in this industry and did a bunch of shows in the Silicon Valley area, what you are saying is so true. The number of rules about what union could do what was crazy!!! And if you dared complained they made sure your stuff got done last and you were charged extra for it. You would not believe how much we had to charge people just so they could have electricity in their booth or a slow internet connection, and if you brought your own internet you were not allowed to use it they would have people checking if there were any signals floating around that were not theirs.

      There were numerous companies that told us they could no longer afford to display at the trade shows we helped put on because of how much it cost to set their booth up and display whatever they are selling. So if you ever wonder why it costs so much to attend a trade show you can thank the Unions.

    260. Re:How is this legal? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It is the local government that has made you into a slave.

      Yep, entirely the local government's fault that nobody will hire a guy who sued his last employer.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    261. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say "benevolence" because if we dared to plug something in ourselves the other unions would react in solidarity with the electrical union and we'd get things done -- next week, maybe, maybe later. After the show was over.

      I'm sorry, I'm smelling AN INCREDIBLE amount of BS here. You have obviously never had dealings with a union run company. If you were running a trade show then you had a CONTRACT with these people, if they refuse to perform contracted activities till "after the show was over" then you walk over to the supervisor and tell them that his people are standing around refusing to do contracted work and the penalties clauses of the contract were now in effect. Once you start costing those at the top money, you can be sure the whip-cracking isn't far behind. Union run companies are just as susceptible to breach of contract as any other.

      Yes, I'm smelling A LOT of BS.

    262. Re:How is this legal? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The same thing applies in a sense to welfare programs in general. The amount of aid you get is dependent upon certain factors. However, these factors don't necessarily get updated that often or are applied in a general sense instead of being location specific. So if you find a job and you dutifully report it, you get a significant reduction in benefits.

      This is what I called "Hellfare" when I was a kid. The system seems designed to deliberately keep people from climbing out of the hole.

      --
      ~X~
    263. Re:How is this legal? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      2 is 100% true. For instance; buy some furniture on time. Fail to pay. Court implements judgement against you. Creditor gets to take $$$ from your account. Scenario 2: Run a credit card up. Can't pay. Collection agency, etc., gets judgement. They can hit your bank account, they can even take your tax return.

      I understand that those of us who don't live like this don't tend to run into these situations, but they're real, they do happen, and they are certainly motivation to keep one's money elsewhere.

      Note that I am not justifying any particular behavior; just pointing out sequences of events that have certain results.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    264. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those are required by law now so your point is Unions are no longer needed?

    265. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All states "allow" unions per federal law. Only a few states "require" unions.

    266. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once I knew this guy that had a bad experience at a grocery store. Very few grocery stores are any good.

    267. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and my union eats babies and shits gold. So, there's that.

    268. Re:How is this legal? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      How about they get a better education and a better job rather then demanding "living wages" from unskilled tasks?

      Not that education means that much anymore, outside of a couple niches.

      That said, I'm fine with it. That guy is happy, and I have no issue with that. Remember, two decades ago these people would have been middle class (union or no), now we expect them to be recent (illegal) immigrants making next to no money, just so profit margins can be higher. My dad, for example, raised a family, sent my mom to college, and raised a kid while living in a decent house (with a healthy mortgage) and taking nice vacations yearly, all while driving a truck. Today this is impossible, the current crop of drivers (or at least at the point where he retired) make next to nothing, work terrible hours (can't have a family), and are generally just passing through (they have to, no future), so don't give a shit about their jobs. They make, at best, a third of what my dad took home, with no pension and minimal benefits. Why shouldn't blue collar jobs make good money? Would you want to do them?

      I should pay more for my car because the guy needs a "living wage" to sweep the floors?

      I'm not sure its that simple, actually. It all equals out, that guy can afford a new car now, meaning they need extra volume/more demand, meaning more cars, meaning less price. Plus you have the non-material aspects, the guy is happy, his family has a better chance at a future, the world is a slightly better place (touchy-feely wise, and sociologically)... You needing to cover an extra .01% on a car doesn't factor in much, to be honest.

      Further, I'd take a couple 70k janitors for the chance to keep management in its place, and keep them from abusing labor to save a buck.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    269. Re:How is this legal? by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Because when a business is allowed to dictate working shifts, the shifts tend to be 18+ hrs? Look at any sweatshop.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    270. Re:How is this legal? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      You're describing medieval guilds, or where "accidents" happen, protection rackets. It can call itself whatever it likes, it may have the "blessing" of the law, but it's medieval guilds and protection rackets all the same.

    271. Re:How is this legal? by similar_name · · Score: 1

      If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills

      That's a big assumption, it's fundamental to your argument and I disagree. People will still work for next to nothing. Even more so when they have a hungry stomach. Try it. Go look for a new job but don't eat until you get one. Now if you want to combine welfare into education programs to truly help people get out of poverty I'll agree with that. I would also support making food stamps operate more like WIC. But the idea that the poor have any kind of market bargaining power doesn't stand up to history outside of unions and revolts.

    272. Re:How is this legal? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      "My union"? Sounds more like a self-inserted layer of middle management to me.

    273. Re:How is this legal? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      (that's self as in its self, not you, btw)

    274. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they are not unions, they are guilds.

      A union is something you join voluntarily, or not, when you begin to work in a field. It doesn't decide whether you are permitted to work in the regulated field, it simply represents your interests (or not) while you work in that field.

      Those professional bodies you mention are guilds, which serve as the gatekeepers, authorising people to work in those professions, or more usually, delegating authority to authorise and certify people to be members of the guild.

      The difference is that while you might have to be a member of a union to work in a given industry, that union doesn't have a say in whether you may work in that industry.

    275. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your anecdote though can be easily picked apart as most likely not the fault of Verizon but of your relative. See your buddy there was a Captain. Officers in the military are used to people doing shit when they get told to. They are also a separate group from the peons and so will carry that "all the employees are idiots" attitude. They aren't in his caste and the military beats the caste system into your skull so bad that it is hard to break from it when you leave. So it is entirely possible, and he/she would absolutely not admit to it (pride is another thing beat in their head), that they walked in, started barking orders like they used to and everyone else turned around and told him to go fark himself. If you keep this mentaility up with managers who were not military trained, they will run you off. But pride won't let you tell everyone that it was your fault. Nope, they were all freaking stupid and everything was all screwed up and he needed to bail before they imploded. Makes him sound like he was the smart one doesn't it? OP there's anecdote is from the peons perspective. HE was in the union, not his brother's first cousin's aunt. He was also not part of the upper caste like Cpt Verizon so his experience is gonna be VASTLY different than your relative. You gotta compare apples to apples even when chucking around anecdotes and an Army Captain vs a phone tech is not even close.

    276. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is idealized and only a few unions ever truly seemed to work for the employees.

      Personal Anecdote FTFail!

      Here are a few things you can "blame" on Unions:

      • Weekends
      • 40-hr work weeks
      • Sick days
      • Being able to live wherever you want, not just a company house
      • No more child labor
      • Benefits
      • Fair hiring practices
      • Fair promotion practices

      Now, please regale up with more tales of flight and fancy and how the unions are to blame!

      Some of us -- retail workers (I work for Trader Joe's) -- don't have "weekends" and "40-hr work weeks" and "sick days." We do have benefits at Trader Joe's (but just reduced), and fairness by management in promotion and hiring is seriously in question.

      Oh yes -- we don't have a union, and the company staunchly opposes unionization.

      People with weekends and 40-hr work weeks sick days can blather on about how unions are bad, but they have the benefits of unionization.

      I need to be an Anonymous Coward. Trader Joe's terminates any employee who comments about them on the internet (TJ's employees w Facebook accounts have mostly dropped all mention of their employment).

    277. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that evil union at Hostess that voted to accept pay cuts *TWICE* in an attempt to keep the company solvent, while the management was diverting pension money to cover other expenses, and still paying for expensive getaways for upper management?

      Yep... Sure sounds like an evil union problem to me. /s

      http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/24/aps-hostess-comeback-story-ignores-context-abou/194570

    278. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I cannot pretend that's true. Point to a statute that requires a union.

    279. Re:How is this legal? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Evidence says otherwise: Hard to refute numbers

    280. Re:How is this legal? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "Maybe the job doesn't meet your aspirations, but maybe you need the money and want to work, even if only for a couple of years. What then?"

      America: A nation full of temporarily-embarrassed millionaires. In any case, I would say more people, with a longer time commitment, are benefiting from the union presence.

    281. Re:How is this legal? by petman · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how Americans put up with being screwed left, right and centre by corporations like these banks. It seems that even banks here in the third world banks, although not perfect, are nevertheless not as draconian as the U.S. banks I'm reading about here.

    282. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think this isn't happening with the express permission of the Unions? Dues are set by the pay rate, not the take home amount. So Unions here will allow companies and government agencies to pass pay cuts of around 10% due to unpaid, mandatory "furloughs" and increased rates for services and insurances. Sure I'm taking home now what I did at this same job in 2006, but the rate says otherwise so SEIU gets paid the same. Similar program for all cash benefits, food stamps and payroll through subsidized employment or "welfare to work" programs-Citibank gets a nice cut out of *everything* these days and the Unions care not.

    283. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the example of Whole Foods. When they first opened in my neighborhood in West LA, they were picketed for a little while by the grocery workers union. WF boasted of high wages and great benefits, which is terrific. But, while I'm not in the boardroom and can't read minds, I doubt that would be the case if there weren't a union down the street. The workers at WF benefit from the hard work of union members fighting for those higher wages and benefits.

    284. Re:How is this legal? by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      During a low, poor period of my life I was working "seasonally" at an official job and doing under the table construction to help make up the slack. My bank at the time was Wells Fargo. Often I would have to go to the bank to cover checks that were going to bounce with cash. I would get there at bank open and deposit cash, a transaction that is supposed to post immediately. They would delay the posting of my cash deposit to business close to let the checks bounce and levy a $33 dollar fee. When I confronted them about this I was told to read the fine print of my agreement, which summed up to "We do what we want, so go pound sand."

    285. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put.
      I did a little reading about unions while researching Siegel & Shuster (the creators of Superman), and the comic book industry. The first comics were printed on presses during hours when they were not being used for their usual purpose - socialist Yiddish newspapers on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. These were union shops, back in the day when unions were doing the heavy lifting we've forgotten and now take for granted. And doing it at great personal risk, both of financial ruin and physical harm.
      Some companies decided to hire criminal gangs to do their head-busting and break up the strikes. Then union members realized that these guys were their neighbors, and had more in common with them, ethnically and culturally, than with the (often) WASPy management. So they appealed to them to stop helping management. Sadly, that work brought a lot of income into their organizations and neighborhoods, and the unions couldn't afford to match the payoff. So, as a compromise, the criminal gangs negotiated peace between labor and management, in exchange for a piece.
      And thus was born organized crime's involvement in the union movement.
      I don't know what moral to draw from this - maybe it was inevitable. It's sad, I know that.

    286. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are but so are the company bosses.

    287. Re:How is this legal? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Teachers would love to have a work week that is merely 40 hours. The time spent in the classroom is far from the entire story; you have to add in the meetings and the time spent on lesson plans and grading to get the full story.

      On the other hand, they get two months off in the summer (albeit unpaid) and an above-average number of paid holidays. Not quite as many holidays as the students get - there are often "professional development days" or some such on some days when the students are out - but still more than most employees.

    288. Re:How is this legal? by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how this can be legal - fees for withdrawals is basically a pay cut. I guess this is what you get when you believe unions are evil...

      Unions are evil. Like any other big business the only thing they actually care about is the bottom line. When you get hired on to a nonunion job that later becomes union and you have to join just to keep working and pay the union for the privilege to work. That is evil. I can live with unions supporting political views that differ from my own, but I will be damned if I am going to pay some schmuck to represent me when I can damn well tell my employer to go to hell my self for free. Most people can't just change jobs at will and I guarantee that a person can get screwed just as easily under the union yoke as with a regular nonunion job.

    289. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I don't benefit from anybody forcing me to belong to their club in order to get a job. I've been in a union, and that hasn't changed my opinion. If anything, it reinforced it.

    290. Re:How is this legal? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I've already read that article. In fact I referred to it above.

      It really doesn't say much. A 4% difference, plus: they can't show that the correlation has any attached causation, and it appears they left out some figures (like union dues) that would tend to reduce that 4% to an even lower number.

    291. Re:How is this legal? by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      If there are fees that bring the wage below the local legal minimum wage, my understanding is that such a practice is illegal.

    292. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering unions have absolutely ZERO power to do anything that the corporation does not agree to, what are you talking about? Oh, you mean they can strike? Well that just means you get to sit outside screaming at scabs that couldn't care less and the company makes more profit paying them half what you make.

    293. Re:How is this legal? by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with you that companies as well shouldn't be allowed to lobby. The mere fact that we identify lobbying, of any sort, as bad is a very good thing. And leads to some rather peculiar realizations regarding democracy, assuming you follow the implications to their logical conclusions.

    294. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Letting Unions have too much power is the same as letting Employers have too much power. Both are ultimately bad for employes.

    295. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There used to be a minimum wage people could live off of without the supplement of food stamps. I would like to see them make the minimum wage, a living wage.

    296. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More supply, employers get a better deal. Less supply, employees get a better deal. Duh. What happened when we stopped having immigrants in the '20s? What happened when we started to open our borders in the '60s, and due to and all the productivity gains due to IT and robotics?

      Gee, couldn't possibly be supply-and-demand of labor, no, it's all about what bullshit people say about it.

      You know, Marx would have called all this nonsense the legal and political superstructure. He was really a fundamentals, supply and demand, means of production kind of guy. New technology reducing the demand for labor, especially semiskilled labor? A reserve army of labor to suppress labor prices? That's what Marx talked about.

      Marxists... they just don't make them like they used to...

    297. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you must live a sheltered life. Perhaps that's how it works in theory (or in your place of employ), but the reality of these trade shows is typically like the otheeposter indicated.

      Hell, as an *attendee* I have seen what the poster described. I even saw a union brother threaten to file a grievance against a poor booth guy who had the nerve to plug his own laptop adapter into the socket on the floor by his chair.

      It's egregious.

    298. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes unions are so great that in many states and in many professions you are forced to join one.

      It's a violation of fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people) to force individuals to be members of a union to pursue their chosen career. The freedom to join or to not join a union is an intrinsic part of being in a free country: if you don't have this freedom you aren't actually free. These laws are unconstitutional, as are contracts that force an employer to only hire union members.

      You might suppose that unconstitutional laws are uncommon in the US legal system. This is far from the case. When a special interest group is willing to bribe the government -- err I mean lobby, excuse me, slip of the tongue there -- an unconstitutional law soon follows, and this sort of thing happens frequently. Such laws tend to stick around for a long time, as having laws that contradict basic freedoms creates an artificial demand for the services of the legal profession to protect people from their own legal system, and the legal profession has de facto responsibility for maintaining the laws. Also, high court justices are selected by a political process that is just as subject to manipulation as the legislative process. Both of these effects tend to cause unconstitutional laws to linger like the smell of a dead skunk (or more accurately, like a few thousand dead skunks, given how many problematic laws are on the books).

      These factors are why, for example, we have a great many laws infringing even the quite explicit "no law" provision of the 1st Amendment and the "may not be infringed" provision of the 2nd Amendment. Given the willingness of government to infringe even the most explicit provisions of the Bill of Rights, is should come as no surprise that rights arising under the open-ended Amendments are subject to massive abuse. James Madison apparently assumed that the open-ended Amendments would prevent this sort of thing, but that hasn't worked out in practice.

      These considerations are also why it took around 70 years to overturn the absurd (and highly contrary to the Bill of Rights) "separate but equal laws".

      US government, at all levels (not just federal), is a great place to study the effects of oath-breaking, and of the negative consequences of ethical conflict of interest on a massive scale by a nation's legal profession, on public policy and on the shaping of a legal system.

      Unions in some situations have done a lot of good. The good ones don't need to coerce people to be members: the leaders practice something called "leadership by example" and lead people into wanting to follow them through high integrity leadership, and they get enough followers to be able to have real influence on employers. In other cases, short sighted and incompetent policies by bad and often corrupt leadership has led to disasters and given unions as a whole a terrible reputation as people over-generalize from a few examples (ok, quite a few) to the whole population.

    299. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you work for the government and/or government agencies often the bosses are also members of the same union and, then, the unions argument to those lower down the pecking order is that "well the bosses are also members too so we have to protect the bosses also". Having been a rank and file member, a shop steward, and a member of the Public Service Association Management Committee i know what i am talking about. What is even more gross, but typically human, is the wheeling and dealing that goes on at the higher levels especially by those who have aspirations to become Labor (sic) politicians.

      As far as non-union versus union, why in hell should non-union workers benefit from the hard work that the unions carry out. Do you think then that the non-union folks should not receive any of the terms, work and conditions fought for by the unions? Do you think that the non-unionists would knock back any of the benefits? Not f'ing likely, they like to feed from the table that others have laid out.

    300. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look at the truckers unions and the dockers/longshoremen's unions, painters and dockers unions - corrupt, criminal and murderous - literally. And then there are the buidlers unions and the fedfa and similar unions that sail very close to the wind by employing and using the legenday "union heavies" those guys don't blanch at a little leg breaking to get a point across.

      You ought to try working with and for some of the real life heavy duty unions as i have in my younger days - wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. But the trouble is that the employers and the contractors are the same types who use the same strategies, techniques and methods. Both are right sets of power hungry bathplugs who will do anything for a quid or for power - again, typical human.

      As for the use of "bank cards" that is just wrong and whomsoever supports it needs a good talking to, preferably in sign language with an actual sign. Ouch.

    301. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has everything to do with unions, with employers, with banks, in fact anytime where humans gather and organzie whether they are bosses or rank and file.

      Some try to do good but they don't use the same methods as the Dark Side.

    302. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the Law in different countries? In some it is illegal to refuse to accept legal tender as in notes and coin if that is the case in your country thenthere ought to be the option to choose cash rather than any other means. The bosses wouldn't like that because the cost of insuring for cash is big. Also most companies are used to subcontracting out payroll activities or cash payments. I recall being a paymaster for a simple firm that paid according to 48 different pay types, rates and conditions - it was so far back that it was all done manually using the Kalamazoo system but the cash was handled by Mayne-Nickless (Brinks equivalent), they collected the cash, made up the pay packets and delivered via armoured car on pay day. Good! Money is literally dirty and, at the end of the day, your hands could be black from handling really dirty money 0i also worked at a bank or two as cashiers).

    303. Re:How is this legal? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what?

      This is greed, plain and simple. Companies that partner with issuing banks of prepaid cards (whether used as payroll, gifts/bonuses, payment cards for the underbanked paid for in cash, etc) get a cut of the fees paid by the cardholder and merchants where the cards are used (interchange).

      I expect it also allows employers to more easily employ people who have a questionably legal worker status, as those workers are likely to accept the prepaid card since getting a proper bank account to cash paychecks may be difficult (I suspect that the Know Your Customer diligence required of the issuing banks of these cards is dubious; opening a proper bank account may screen illegals more effectively). It doesn't help that banking laws requiring performing KYC, but do not at all define what that minimally entails. Because there are no lines of credit being issued, the risk to the bank is effectively zero so long as they successfully screen out people on the terror watch lists.

      Poor regulation of the payment card sector is what allows this to continue. Stuff like the Durbin Amendment helped slightly as it capped interchange on debit cards, but of course did nothing to address the "convenience" fees thrown in the mix. A lot of the costs of processing payment cards (i.e., as the merchant), when you dive in, are reasonably justified, but that's not a discussion I can have in a textarea field; however, charges such as cash withdrawal or balance inquiry fees are simply abusive and need to be legally addressed.

      Source: I work in the payment card industry, and have in the past integrated with issuing banks to issue debit cards. Not for this sleazy payroll shit though.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    304. Re:How is this legal? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      The book 'The Jungle' did more to correct those than Unions.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    305. Re:How is this legal? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Most benefits are a product of post-WWII government wage restrictions, not unions.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    306. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1> Go to a bank or better yet a Credit Union - way better than a bank and they don't charge you $3.00 just to see what your balance it
      2> I should not have to pay ANYTHING in order to get paid for work I've done on a PAYROLL - PERIOD!!!

      Agree with the rest though - esp. BIG BANKS taking advantage of lower income or folks who don't understand the tradeoff of conevenience vs getting ripped off

    307. Re:How is this legal? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any cycle completing and going back to strong unions? Are you measuring things back like before the founding of the USA or something? Workers in Europe?

      Unions were barely starting to get off the ground in the late 1800's, weak in the early 1900's, peaked in 1954, and membership in unions has declined ever since.

      And from the 1980's (Reagan) onward there has been very strong political measures taken to weaken unions. And this continues right up to the present, with several Republican controlled States outright banning collective bargaining for public workers.

    308. Re:How is this legal? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The best example I can think of is in Britain, where the unions shut down most of the country's industrial capacity for a year, until Margaret Thatcher broke them. I'm Australian, and even here, where unions never got to that point, we still had problems. My grandfather worked for an engineering company, and he told about being unable to fire people who were stealing from the company, because the union threatened to strike and shut down the company if he'd tried, even after acknowledging what the employee was doing.

      I'm not as familiar with the US, but even you guys have union shops, where the union basically becomes a de facto labour monopoly, and got legislation passed legalising their ability to compel workers to join. So they definitely had strength at some point, there.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    309. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need unions to get fair treatment. The employees just need to get together and tell the boss if they don't get paid properly they're all quitting.

      Not sure if troll...

    310. Re:How is this legal? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      this example is overdrawn and distraught. While the unions are guilty of over-protection of their members, as was probably the original case before this story became a Story, the reality is that the unions felt pressed into this insanity by employers who were going too far in the opposite direction: as in trying to make rules where union employees were only used to do a certain restricted set of jobs that required years of training and experience. Then allowing the hire of new employees who could do everything up to these few high-expertise job. Then they allowed these few jobs to be sub-contracted out and set up union shops to just do these few jobs.

      What the union saw was that incoming young employees were being directed to non-union shops and away from union membership where they would, eventually, have high expertise skills. By the time they reached the level where those skills would be available to them the union meant nothing, so they wouldn't join.

      So, the union's reply to these tactics was to insist on contracts where union employees had to control every part of every job so that the younger members would get complete experience and actually learn the trade. That kept union membership high, and maintained a future for the unions.

      The name for employers tactics like this is called "union-busting" and the thing that made it successful was that the unions were screwed either way. Either they lost the battle up front, or they lost it in the end. Now they have lost it in the end (with constant repetition of Stories like this) and we, the public, the employees, the middle class that the union helped build, are completely screwed.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    311. Re:How is this legal? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      This reads consonant with a Poe's Law-invoking religious diatribe. Where any one side has too much power in the struggle between labor and ownership, ludicrous conditions are likely to exist. 19th century worker safety and living wages were "negotiated" for, rather than benevolently given, but there is some precedent suggesting powerful labor unions are willing to extort and bully on par with corporate barons. The new world order suggests that jobs owned by multi-national corporations will continue to flow to poorer and poorer countries for their low wages and minimal governmental oversight. The 'have' countries will continue to enjoy cheaper products to offset their manufacturing job losses, just as the 'have-not' nations get a shot at growing a middle class. This would appear to suggest the further decline in the power of organized labour unions.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    312. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no correlation between this and unions, just because you disagree with people who are anti-union is not a valid reason to state their position is why this happen. Frankly I blame the worker, I would NEVER work for any employer whose policy is payment via prepaid card. If you don't offer direct deposit I don't work for you. I don't need a union for this, it is common sense of being an employee. If you agree to work for such employers then it is YOU OWN FAULT, so take responsibility for YOU OWN STUPIDITY! Unions exist to protect stupid people from their own stupid decisions. This is why I love the technical work so much, we don't have unions we have enough power due to our knowledge base to obtain our own bargaining power! In addition, we TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS! Also in 35 states within the U.S. this form of employee payment IS ILLEGAL.

    313. Re:How is this legal? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And in my lifetime, I've watched unions put whole lines of industry out of business in the U.S., because union greed (which is to say, union-boss greed; workers tend to be more realistic) trumped the necessity of any business to make a profit to stay IN business. Tho personally I think this is just as likely to be an exit strategy for said union bosses... they go away rich, you go home jobless, and eventually we all pay more as that industry goes overseas and they discover they now have us by the balls. (Check the price of steel in recent years.. since it's gone entirely to China, price per pound has increased at about 3x the rate of inflation.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    314. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes unions are so great that in many states and in many professions you are forced to join one. I have no problem with voluntary unions, but unions can be just as oppressive as employers.

      The greatest service that a union provides is a check on corporate power possibility for corruption. So if you are advocating a removal of that check, then what type of check are you advocating to replace the union with? The choice to go without a check only guarantees a corrupted corporate authoritarian elite. In other words, there is no legitimate choice to go without and possess the ability to bypass the forth coming corruption of authority. I would have loved to have asked the Governor of Wisconsin that question on national TV three years ago or so, when the entire world bore witness to the corporatist elite effectively consolidating power.

    315. Re:How is this legal? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      My old union rep came and got me in the middle of my work and told me that someone turned me in for using drugs in the bathroom, before my area manager was allowed to do anything. The area manager didn't know who said what (on purpose), but had a written report from whoever. It was all just crap anyway, so once I explained what I was doing (which wasn't illegal drugs), then myself, my manager, and my area manager all laughed and I went back to work. No drug testing, although I was told that if they actually had thought I was "impaired" they legally could make me, but I didn't object anyway. I never did find out who said what, but I soon moved on and never was very vindictive anyway. My point is, the union there (CWA) was the reason that process existed in the first place. I've been fired for "no explanation needed" before, and this way is at least clear in procedure and fair. I don't think we ever had double overtime, but I do agree that is pretty crappy. But our union dues where $22 a month, I don't know what type of signing bonuses you received. CWA was prepped for angry people when they announced they where shutting down "tech support" and moving everyone over to just "billing". You could stay in "tech support", you would just have to move about 200 miles away. The union reps all just said "it's a 'internal to the company' policy shift", like they had no say about it and the execs just did it, since no one lost their job. Management and CWA both acted like they where reading from the same script immediately. This was the reason I eventually stop working there...it wasn't a good enough job to stay at when there is no "promotion" into a better department, and I could see exactly what I would make per-hour for the rest of my life in the union's little booklet.

    316. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I got screwed out of my job after I blew the whistle on something and my union just stood and watched. I didn't even get a rep at the disciplinary hearings, they said there were none available and regs stated I could have a colleague stand in, yeah well guess what none of my coworkers were too eager to sit in on that kind of meeting.

    317. Re:How is this legal? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Pretty clearly, the GP is an immigrant/migrant worker. And without a job will be deported. So,a t that point, is being 6 months behind in pay worth being exiled? What if there's another job that pays the rent/etc. that he moonlights as (e.g. cab driver) but is not worthy of getting a visa?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    318. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget being able to spend your wages somewhere other than the overpriced Company Store.

    319. Re:How is this legal? by msmonroe · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

      The teachers are ruled by unions. Do they work 40 hour weeks?

      No.

      And Twinkies.

      You don't need unions to get fair treatment. The employees just need to get together and tell the boss if they don't get paid properly they're all quitting.

      Are you a teacher? You've been watching too much fox news. My ex-wife worked at least 60 hours a week and the crap that they have to put up with is not worth it. It's the demonization of education by the far right that pushes these types of idea. Let's do away with the department of education blah, blah, blah. Just look at third world countries if you want to do away with education. In fact if you want to do away with stuff starting looking at some third world countries, that will give you insight to what you want America to become.

    320. Re:How is this legal? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like a guild.

    321. Re:How is this legal? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need to stop focusing on whether unions are good or bad, and just focus on whether people have a right to unionize or not. The same goes for corporations. People aren't required to act in your best interest, or in the best interest of society.

    322. Re:How is this legal? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      just like corporations are nominally on the side of the shareholders. (but really, controlled by wealthy executives with connections to wealthy board members)

    323. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, when a union takes my money I never see it again. Ever heard of a union boss before? Ever heard of a union spending money on political candidates? Yeah, that money never comes back to me.

    324. Re:How is this legal? by operagost · · Score: 1

      So instead of having part of your paycheck go to withdrawal fees, it can go to dues?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    325. Re:How is this legal? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why? The end result is still poverty, and instead of the "fat cat" being an entrepreneur or executive it's a union boss.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    326. Re:How is this legal? by operagost · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't the policy; it's the union's bad advice. Very bad.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    327. Re:How is this legal? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should learn how to save their money for the summer instead, because teachers' salaries at every level are higher than those in IT in my area. A brand new, 22 year old teacher starts at $46K for a contractual 190 days of work. That's a good start for a rookie, not to mention that they get health insurance that they only pay 10% of the premium for. They get 75% of their costs for graduate school reimbursed. They also get paid $33/hr to teach summer school.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    328. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way a union can oppress you is through the privileges and powers of the government. Ultimately, the oppressor is one in the same.

    329. Re:How is this legal? by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      "the inequality slowly slips the other way" for (i = 0; i < INT_MAX; i++) { printf("hahahaha haha hahahahaha ha ha ha hahaha hahahahahahahaha "); } printf("\n");

    330. Re:How is this legal? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that the majority of Costco locations are non-union, and QuikTrip and In-N-Out Burger are entirely non-union companies. You're right about them paying significantly better wages and benefits than many other companies in their respective markets, and I like the service provided by employees at all three.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    331. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told a plant manager that whatever management argued for and demanded without quarter, would soon be applied to him. Our UAW contract which I had a hand in convincing the union members the 2nd offer was all they where going get. .05 hr increase per year for 3years & .25 hr the last year. The benifit package co-pay increased 10% per with 50/50 the last year. I had just went the same process with Teamster Union job. My teamster job involved A & B wage tiers with B paying $4.50 hr less in the last contract. After reviewing the current and proposed contracts I observed a provision for opening a non-union shop in the next county. Show-nuff they opened a facility in the next county, while we were negotiating. It sure put a monkey in management plans when the union accepted their offer. Still it helped some maintain employment. Oh the plant manager got thanked by getting transferred from LA to Chattanooga & 45% cut in pay. I convinced him it actually was pay increase because car insurance, taxes, property & are 35% to 75% less there. He came back to LA 3 months later. instead of paying $3500 to rent in LA, he was buying a bigger house on 80 acres for 60% less + his wife was happy because she finally got country club status. The next time around with the UAW, I told the plant manager after he told us we were stupid for accepting what was offered. I replied that the company was prepared to fold up their tent and move. This was only a delay. I also told him my hunt for a new job starts tomorrow & he should sharpen his pencil & tune-up his resume, your are next Steve. He laughed and said was a crazy old man. 6 months later the company fired him after 45% of the hourly were permanently laid off. 3 1/2 years later the plant was closed. It is hard to fool someone who paying close attention to details. BTW California was right to work & MIchigan was union shop. Odd is it not, that the same patterns have been observed by me 3x in 3 different decades and union vs right to work was no difference in the outcome?

    332. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you move on to your next job file with the US Dept of Labor, Wage Hour division if the company does not pay for all of your hours worked. Make sure you document everything and keep all copies off campus. The FEDs love when you do this. Do this compliant only after you have established yourself on the next job. BTW The results may surprise you. The US Treasury Dept does not like when you get cheated because they get cheated also.

    333. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when do you think the company store, company house & company compound for workers residences will be back? The 1880s were grand for business.

    334. Re:How is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open a bank account and have it direct deposited, it's free. If you demand to be handed paper or cash instead then it's well within the rights of the employer to charge a modest fee for that extra service. Transaction costs aren't free after all.

  3. I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most companies switched to direct deposit by now.

    1. Re:I thought by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

      That assumes you have a regular bank account to which funds can be transferred. Some people don't have one and need to get paid somehow. But the for fee debit card thing is simply evil.

    2. Re:I thought by Skapare · · Score: 2

      In some cases even direct deposit (no fee for the deposit ... the account holder's fees are the same whether pay is direct deposited or not and in some cases banks reduce fees if you sign up for direct deposit) is not an available option. It costs the employER to do direct deposit, while the banks are making these card scams cheaper or free to employERs. But I bet the bank CEOs don't get their pay on these cards.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    3. Re:I thought by pla · · Score: 1

      Some people don't have one

      Get one.

      Done in one.

    4. Re:I thought by 0racle · · Score: 1

      But banks are evil and will steal your money.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cost to the employer for direct deposit and other means of electronic fund transfers are less than the cost of printing and distributing checks.

    6. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs the employER to do direct deposit

      I know that's not true, because I use ING's free direct deposit service. Maybe there's an HR cost in setting it up though.

    7. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes you have a regular bank account to which funds can be transferred. Some people don't have one and need to get paid somehow.

      Getting paid by check or these debit cards assumes you have pants in order to have a pocket to put it in. There are catches with any payment method.

  4. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Picass0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Weekly? Bi-weekly seems to be the most common in the US.

    I've been thin for cash during that second week enough times, I can only imagine how much worse it would be to go a whole month.

  5. Gotta say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is hilarious.

  6. Walmart by Flipstylee · · Score: 2

    They were in the process of doing this when i left the company about 4 years ago, no word if it went through.
    If so, that's a few million right there.

  7. article missed some points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The NYTimes talks about the fees that come along with the use of a preloaded debit card, but in some states (e.g. California), there is a legal requirement that the employee be able to get their pay without any fees, etc. , and at a location convenient to them. No paycheck drawn on a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state, etc.

    Mind you, that doesn't mean that employers actually follow the rules, or that the employees, who typically are spending all their time just staying alive, will pursue this with the Dept of Labor Standards Enforcement, but at least it is the law.

    1. Re:article missed some points by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Some other states have similar requirements. In some cases (I think Pennsylvania) the requirement only applies to the first $1500. So if there is a percentage fee to cash a check, it applies only to the amount above $1500. And the check has to be imprinted that it is a payroll check. Whether the bank eats that fee loss, or passes it back to the employer, is probably up to the bank.

      As for the pre-paid cards, if they make a law that requires the cards to have NO FEES AT ALL for up to 1 withdrawal per day for the duration of the next pay cycle (do it again for the next pay cycle if the same card is re-used), then it might be OK. But it needs to be a law that is enforced, with penalties like a day in jail for the bank CEO per violation count for every affected person per pay period (if it is the fault of the bank ... the employER CEO if the employer is at fault).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:article missed some points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say pay them with cash for their time, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that is probably illegal by the employer...and probably the employee.

    3. Re:article missed some points by jittles · · Score: 1

      The NYTimes talks about the fees that come along with the use of a preloaded debit card, but in some states (e.g. California), there is a legal requirement that the employee be able to get their pay without any fees, etc. , and at a location convenient to them. No paycheck drawn on a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state, etc.

      Mind you, that doesn't mean that employers actually follow the rules, or that the employees, who typically are spending all their time just staying alive, will pursue this with the Dept of Labor Standards Enforcement, but at least it is the law.

      A smart poor person would contact the Department of Industrial Relations in California. You aren't considered to have been paid (even if you have access to the money) if most of those rules aren't followed. That makes you legally entitled to up to one day's pay for every calendar day in which your employer fails to comply with the law. Speaking from experience (employer failed to give me final paycheck on last day when given more than 72 hours notice, they held my pay for over 6 weeks), that can be a nice little payday.

    4. Re:article missed some points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume they have got their pay. They can be taxed on it. Just because they choose to withdraw it in cash to pay for other goods and services. They have been paid, however their preferred mechanisms for spending it do incur a service fee.

    5. Re:article missed some points by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Minnesota has a similar law but from what I remember if you don't receive you final pay check within 24 hours of ending a job (provided notice was given or being fired) you are entitled to to something like 2x your pay. I had an employer that was a bit dodgy when it came to pay (they did all sorts of questionable shit) and when the closed their Minnesota stores they really screwed up bad. They had a policy that made you full time if you worked more than some number of hours in a pay period for 2 consecutive pay periods (I want to say it was something like 70 hours in two weeks). When they were closing up I made sure that I made it to those hours as full time employees were going to get 3 months worth of pay as severance. They were hard up for people to work so they weren't really checking to ensure people stayed within their allotted hours so I was able to do it discretely. Well they ended up screwing up my final check as the system did catch that I was a full time employee but wasn't flagged as one and the processes of that transition caused a delay and I didn't get my last pay check on time but when I finally got it a few days later it was something like $7500 (I was in high school at the time) which was huge for me.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:article missed some points by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " there is a legal requirement that the employee be able to get their pay without any fees, "

      In California, specifically the law is Labor code section 212.

      And Chase bank is helping several companies violate this law by charging fees on payroll checks (coming from that bank, maybe not that particular branch but the account being drawn upon is a Chase account.) The fee is $6.

      Anyone with standing want to join me in a class-action suit to break Chase's bank?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:article missed some points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong (at least in California's case). California labor law does stipulate that anything given in lieu of actual cash must be redeemable at no discount. However, California's labor enforcement agencies have taken the position that payroll cards are a form of direct deposit in California, and as such, are only required to be redeemable at a location "within the state". It is not unusual for a paycheck to be delivered on a card offered through, as you put it, "a bank in some other state with only 3 branches in that state". Additionally, the categorizing payroll cards as direct deposit means that once the wages hit the "account" attached to the card, they are no longer considered wages subject to the "no discount/fee" rules.

      Here is the opinion of the California Department of Industrial Relations on the legality of payroll cards.
      http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/2008-07-07.pdf

      Even though the opinion letter is targeted at larger banks(and even then, only the ones mentioned in the letter), smaller ones have used it as a mandate to run their cards in California.

      This issue has been brewing in California for a while and several bills have been run in the state legislature there. None have passed and been signed into law.

    8. Re:article missed some points by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Why class action? If they made you pay fees, they didn't pay you. Get a lawyer. The back pay for missed paychecks adds up pretty quickly.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    9. Re:article missed some points by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      but at least it is the law.

      This just made me very, very sad... If we have such laws that get applied on a per-choice basis, then I will also choose to apply only the laws that I'm fond of (up yours RIAA and MPAA!!).

      Socrates really did die in vain. *sigh*

    10. Re:article missed some points by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      >Socrates really did die in vain

      You only have to read Plato's "The Republic" to know that.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    11. Re:article missed some points by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Why class action?"

      Because I can guarantee that Chase is compliant in violating California law by forcing this fee upon those trying to cash a payroll check, which may include a couple of million people. This would be guaranteed to be put in as a class action suit anyways due to sheer number of the people affected.

      And I have lawyered up, that's why I'm asking who wants to join? Along with Chase Bank (And likely every other financial institution that isn't a credit union) the employers themselves need to be whipped into place for not following the law.

      Sadly, this sort of lawsuit would hurt so many employers and banks in California that it's likely to collapse California's economy, but that will also fuck America's economy and maybe FINALLY force a fuckton of regulations and laws against this shit to be actively ENFORCED for once in our lives.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  8. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    Depends on the job. Most salaried workers get paid monthly in the US.

  9. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by michrech · · Score: 3, Informative

    As someone who gets paid once monthly -- it's not that bad, once you get your budget set up. I get paid on the last day of the month, unless that is a weekend, in which case I get paid the Friday before. I have *most* of my bills set to be due on the 5'th, so I get them all out of the way right up front. I have a few that are due around the 20'th, but since they are stable (IE: they don't change), it's easy to budget around them.

    --
    bork bork bork!
  10. Colleges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some colleges have been doing that with student aid payments. Alamo Colleges in San Antonio started doing something similar.

  11. Wage Theft by skywire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell me again how it is the employee's responsibility to defray the employer's payroll processing costs?

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    1. Re:Wage Theft by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had a former employer that decided to cut direct deposit in order to cut "defray unnecessary expenses" for the 8 employees at the company. Apparently direct deposit was costing about $1 per employee every other week for payroll.

      That was also the week that I started to look for a new job. Shortly thereafter, the company let everyone go.

    2. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is America.

      I'll elaborate: This is the United States of America.

      Furthermore: This is the United States of America where cost cutting goes so far, now even the cost of cutting costs is cut from the employee's pay.

      Of course, I would never work for an employer who did this nonsense.

    3. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have highlighted the correct process of the free labor market. Thank you.

    4. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not paid by your employer, that's an economic fallacy. You, as an employee, add some amount of value to the goods and services provided by the company, and *that* is where your pay comes from.

      The employee's take-home pay is that added value minus *all* costs associated with hiring *and* managing the employee. That includes the "employer contribution" to Social Security and all those worker-friendly regulations like OSHA.

      If the added value is less than minimum wage + all associated costs + regulations, the employee simply doesn't get hired.

    5. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *golf clap* The world needs more corporate whores such as this man. He will bow down and suck your cock for the measly scraps you deem him worthy of receiving.

    6. Re:Wage Theft by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The employee's take-home pay is that added value minus *all* costs associated with hiring *and* managing the employee. That includes the "employer contribution" to Social Security and all those worker-friendly regulations like OSHA.

      Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      So what you're saying is that no multinational corporations ever make any profit, because all the value added by their employees goes directly to those employees? I reiterate:

      Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Wage Theft by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You are not paid by your employer, that's an economic fallacy.

      *Of course* employees who work for a company are paid by the company.

      You, as an employee, add some amount of value to the goods and services provided by the company, and *that* is where your pay comes from.

      If this perverse theory were true, then employees who add no value could never be on the payroll. Companies in the red for the year could never pay their employees, etc. I guess you never worked in a large company, eh?

      You seem to be confusing source of funds with expenses, or perhaps applying all-cash day labor transactions to corporate accounting. Try a basic accounting text.

      There's no economic theory that treats a company as a zero-value entity. Not even Marxism - even though it assumes that all things that need to be invented and built are extant, it still assigns value to those things.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Wage Theft by darkstar949 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not paid by your employer, that's an economic fallacy. You, as an employee, add some amount of value to the goods and services provided by the company, and *that* is where your pay comes from.

      I don't see how that is an economic fallacy. The employment contract I have says that the company will pay me $DOLLAR_AMOUNT on twice monthly basis and in exchange I offer my time and knowledge to them a JOB_TITLE. There nothing in the contract that says that my pay is contingent upon the company selling product or being profitable. In fact most start-up companies gamble that the employees they hire will ultimately allow them to be profitable which breaks the equation you have.

      Also, there are a lot of jobs at a company that do not directly contribute to the profitability of the company via the goods and services offered but in fact are part of the sunk cost of doing business. For example, accountants generally don't generate goods or services that generate profits for the company, but ultimately, you are going to be a tough spot if you try to run a company without accountants managing your books.

    9. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTH are you talking about?

      Employers rceive tax breaks for costs of doing business. Employees do not receive any tax breaks for paying fees to access their money.

    10. Re:Wage Theft by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any free market depends on meaningful choices. Those actually have to exist and be usable in order for a free market to exist. Quite often they don't.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Wage Theft by robw47 · · Score: 1

      The employee's take-home pay is that added value minus *all* costs associated with hiring *and* managing the employee. That includes the "employer contribution" to Social Security and all those worker-friendly regulations like OSHA.

      Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      So what you're saying is that no multinational corporations ever make any profit, because all the value added by their employees goes directly to those employees? I reiterate:

      Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Profit is added on top of costs. So no, that is not what he is saying.

    12. Re:Wage Theft by sjames · · Score: 2

      That sounds great! I'll tell the grocery store that they are not paid by me for the food I buy, but by my employers profit. I'm sure they'll understand.

      Or perhaps they'll fall back on that old saw that I owe them the money or I can't leave with my groceries. I'll bet they won't let me pay them in cows, chickens, rubles, or my special 'cash card' either.

    13. Re:Wage Theft by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Except they do, and you are a liar. Not only are there other jobs, but you can also start your own business.

      But then, with all these new labor and healthcare laws coming along to "help" us, you might be right about there only being one monolithic employer left in the nation. But of course, that isn't a free market, now is it?

    14. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not worry, soon you will have the option of paying your employer directly for the privilege of working for them! Actually there are already internship programs like that in the US for people from outside the country. You pay $7K upfront for room and board, and you are paid $200 a week for 40 hours of work in one of our fine(S&P 500) corporations! Here's a link: http://www.mountbatten.org/mipweb.nsf/pages/ny_a_year_in_ny

    15. Re:Wage Theft by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Blame the banks for that. They're attaching fees to electronic transactions which are higher than for processing paper checks. In all likelihood their fees were a lot higher than $1 per paycheck. I had to pick the banks for my personal accounts carefully because many of them don't allow or charge you for using ACH to move money between your own accounts. Sure the employer can pick a bank which allows free or low-cost ACH transactions for direct deposit. But if the employee's bank refuses or charges a high fee to ACH money in, the business is SOL.

      Yeah in general a business which can't pay up to a few hundred dollars extra per employee per year probably isn't on solid financial footing. But on principle, electronic funds transfers should be cheaper than a printed paycheck, not more expensive.

    16. Re:Wage Theft by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Except they do, and you are a liar. Not only are there other jobs, but you can also start your own business.

      Starting your own business isn't exactly cheap and it's not a guarantee that you'll make a meaningful amout of money. Starting your own business is something you do when you have the financial reserves to invest in your company and take potential failure, not when you need work soon if you want to be able to pay the bills.

      Starting your own business is a reasonable option for some but not for all.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:Wage Theft by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Which throws his whole argument out. Because the company takes as much money out as profit as it can, the worker isn't paid according to how much values they add to the company. They're paid as much as the market will bear, and the difference is kept as profit.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then you're saying the same thing a fuckton of us slashdotters have been saying for eons: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET!

    19. Re:Wage Theft by similar_name · · Score: 1
      However, it is also true that if the labor force is larger than the labor required that wages will sink with no end. Unfortunately, humans do not store in a warehouse until needed. When there is a surplus in labor it does not take long for poverty to spread in a free market. We see this anywhere government is too weak to enforce regulations. And when poverty spreads so does crime.

      It's not like everything was working fantastic with the free market and people suddenly decided to enact regulations and laws for no reason. Now, money has twisted our regulation and convinced people that the solution is no regulation. The real debate should be about what our regulations should look like, not whether they should exist.

      If you want to convince me that OSHA should be abolished then you're going to have to show me the amortized costs of injuries and deaths. If you put the cost of death around 10 times salary (4-10 times is generally accepted) You could argue that cheaper or more profitable coal is worth x number of deaths. Of course a death might not cost you anything. There would be nothing for the family to sue about. There would be no guidelines or regulations that you failed to meet.

      The problem is the economy is not a zero sum game but our money is. As we increase productivity the base money supply should have expanded. Because the government printing money is a no-no we instead let banks print the money and then borrow it. Companies are making greater profits and have shown no indication of increasing hiring. The truth is, companies don't hire people just because they have money. They hire people because it will make them more money to do so.

      If the added value is less than minimum wage + all associated costs + regulations, the employee simply doesn't get hired.

      It also means that demand is not great enough for the product to pay anyone a decent wage to produce it.

    20. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points left, I would mod your ass down for being a pretentious asshole. I already blew em all on all the OTHER pretentious assholes here. Go fuck yourself with your bootstraps, while we eat our cake, and when we get done, we'll hang you by them.

    21. Re:Wage Theft by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Not a very progressive grocery store if they don't accept bitcoins; after all, bitcoins are almost as good as cowrie shells, chickens, etc

      Note to the humour impaired mods - of course I know that bitcoins aren't real money)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    22. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention things like government jobs, where the employee is paid by the people of the geographic area covered by that government agency. That also breaks GP's equation.

    23. Re:Wage Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value-add is where the profit comes from.

      He said, "The employee's take-home pay is that added value minus *all* costs associated with hiring *and* managing the employee."

      If an employee were to get *all* of that "added value minus *all* costs associated with hiring *and*managing the employee", there wouldn't *be* any left-over 'added value'.

      Instead, an employee's take-home pay is their added value minus all costs associated with hiring and managing the employee *AND* a share of the company's profit margin.

  12. Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congress should step in and outlaw or regulate this kind of thing.

    1. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress should step in and outlaw or regulate this kind of thing.

      BWWWAAA HAA HAAA HAAAA!!!

      Good one.

      Because MORE laws from our masters only makes things better, right?

    2. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Gov. Perry. Have you come up with the name of the third agency you'd cut?

    3. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I normally always buy into government bad, and applaud government shut downs...

      This is one area I wouldn't mind them making a law. While I will always vote with my feet, and leave and employer that impliments this, or not even attempt to get hired at one that does do debit card only, this is just stupid. I'd rather not be concerned that one day my presently fine employer will go rogue and adopt such a stupid policy. Or when looking for jobs, have to sift through them to find ones that pay with checks(or direct deposits).

      It really just amounts to another tax on your wages that gets kicked back to a third party bank for no apparent gain for the employee.

    4. Re:Congress by Skapare · · Score: 1

      ... only when they are enforced. But that's why Republicans are trying to downsize government, so it costs too much to enforce white collar crimes, corporate fraud, etc.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    5. Re:Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conveniently, the people hurt by this sort of thing are also the people who are most likely to not have proper IDs. Congress could step in and outlaw this practice and risk alienating very powerful banks and other companies who are profiting off these poor people. Or Congress could rely on voter disenfranchisement to prevent those poor people from having any political voice.

  13. State of Oklahoma as well by Dios · · Score: 5, Informative

    This frustrated me this year. I received a pre-pair card from the State of Oklahoma for my OK Tax Return. I swear I filled out the direct deposit info, but perhaps I didn't (I could check my copies...). What upset me is the fees for funds withdrawals/etc. This is my money, the state and its corporate partner shouldn't be making money off me when I try to get it.

    The card did allow a single withdrawal without a fee at an ATM. I couldn't find an ATM it would work in. Finally logged in to the associated website and transferred to my banking account, with a $0.75 fee. What a crock!

    Here's the Oklahoma website pdf detailing the info: http://www.tax.ok.gov/it2011/RefundCard.pdf
    and their FAQ: http://www.tax.ok.gov/faq/faqDEBITCARD001.html

    1. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This to me is even worse than the payroll cards. You can chose your employer, you can't (realistically, not everyone is without family, friends, local ties folks) chose your state. Pretty offensive.

    2. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This to me is even worse than the payroll cards. You can chose your employer, you can't (realistically, not everyone is without family, friends, local ties folks) chose your state. Pretty offensive.

      You can choose to not overpay your estimated taxes over the year.

    3. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is my money, the state and its corporate partner shouldn't be making money off me when I try to get it.

      I just wanted to interject this: conservative or liberal, I hope we can all agree that big business colluding with big government is often times a recipe for bad things to happen.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you call then if it didn't work?

      Also, according to the FAQ:

      How can I use my refund debit card free of charge?

      You can use the card anywhere MasterCard is accepted. At the gas station, grocery store, department store, on-line store and many more. You can also take the card and PIN number to any bank or credit union that accepts MasterCard and ask the teller for the full amount of the card balance in cash or deposit it into your checking or savings account. You can also withdraw funds from the card free of charge from any MoneyPass ATM location in Oklahoma.

      I worked in banking for 7 years, in NYS. NYS issues these type of cards for disability/workers comp/taxes, etc. Same terms it seems as OK. People would come in with cards and withdraw the entire balance without a fee all the time.

      I'm not saying I'm for or against the card. But blaiming the state when you had options of getting the cash off free of charge. The cards are cheaper for the state then the paper checks. Now that I work for NYS tax, I've seen the numbers. It's massively cheaper for the state when you add up the check fee's compared to the debit card when you're talking 10's of millions and 10's millions of checks per year.

      In fact I think it was either this year or last, you could no longer get a physical check. Direct deposit or the card only. And they are pushing everyone to e-file.

    5. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I'm for or against the card. But blaiming the state when you had options of getting the cash off free of charge. The cards are cheaper for the state then the paper checks.

      Cards are only cheaper for the state because the company they partner with offers them to the state for free, with the expectation that a certain percentage of people will be make a mistake and hit one of the (many) fees, or use them as swipe cards and collect the ~3% swipe fees. In other words, it has merely shifted from an up-front and explicit cost (for distributing checks) to a hidden, higher behind-the-scenes cost. The cards are most definitely not free, or lower cost to the people.

      For example, my state of Virginia also sent these cards out for tax returns. In their brochure they claimed you could withdrawal the money for free by going to a website and entering your bank info to transfer the funds. However, the form wouldn't complete if you entered the entire deposit amount - you had to leave off the amount for the fee. The company managing the cards claimed they had no knowledge of being able to get funds out without a fee (of course there's a transfer fee!), and the VA Dept of Taxation claimed they had no idea why I couldn't get my money for free.

      I've never had to spend hours on the phone for a damn check. Virginia (and it sounds like Oklahoma, from the GP) sold us out. Fuck 'em.

    6. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by tibit · · Score: 1

      Not really. Not on state taxes. There's simply no mechanism to indicate to your employer that you want less deducted from state taxes. Many employers use a third party processor for payroll, so if that processor offers no mechanism, then there's nothing you can do.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Skapare · · Score: 1

      So then you agree that we need to make such a law fully universal across the whole country, mandating that this one time whole payment withdrawal be with NO FEE, under penalty of a day in jail for the CEO of the company that caused it to happen, for every affected person per pay period (so if their company charged a fee or allowed one to be charged, for 500 employees for 3 pay periods, that's 1500 days in jail)?

      Or the CFO.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    8. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I'm for or against the card. But blaiming the state when you had options of getting the cash off free of charge. The cards are cheaper for the state then the paper checks.

      Cards are only cheaper for the state because the company they partner with offers them to the state for free, with the expectation that a certain percentage of people will be make a mistake and hit one of the (many) fees, or use them as swipe cards and collect the ~3% swipe fees. In other words, it has merely shifted from an up-front and explicit cost (for distributing checks) to a hidden, higher behind-the-scenes cost. The cards are most definitely not free, or lower cost to the people.

      For example, my state of Virginia also sent these cards out for tax returns. In their brochure they claimed you could withdrawal the money for free by going to a website and entering your bank info to transfer the funds. However, the form wouldn't complete if you entered the entire deposit amount - you had to leave off the amount for the fee. The company managing the cards claimed they had no knowledge of being able to get funds out without a fee (of course there's a transfer fee!), and the VA Dept of Taxation claimed they had no idea why I couldn't get my money for free.

      I've never had to spend hours on the phone for a damn check. Virginia (and it sounds like Oklahoma, from the GP) sold us out. Fuck 'em.

      I'm also in VA. I got mine without paying a fee. The website allowed me to enter the full amount. No problem.

    9. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear I filled out the direct deposit info, but perhaps I didn't (I could check my copies...).

      You didn't or you screwed it up.

    10. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      This is my money, the state and its corporate partner shouldn't be making money off me when I try to get it.

      I just wanted to interject this: conservative or liberal, I hope we can all agree that big business colluding with big government is often times a recipe for bad things to happen.

      I wholeheartedly agree. The problem I see is that many conservatives and liberals are all for government partnership with big business, when it suits them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, unfortunately common sense doesn't prevail. The battle lines have been drawn between "conservative"/"liberal", democrat/republican and bleating will be all we hear.

    12. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first mistake was giving a free loan of your money to the government...

    13. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Republicans are for big business (as is some democrats), Democrats are for big government (as are some republicans). You mix 40-60% of each and get this result: big business colluding with big government.

      You want different results, try a different recipe, vote Libertarian.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      How is that any worse than the IRS counting your tax refund as income received in the following year? That's basically taxing the same money twice.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    15. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to pay 5.5% state income tax to live in a tornado alley?

    16. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Exactly, big business can do only very little associated within their particular focus without the threat of force that government can provide.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    17. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't do that unless you get a state refund and you deducted the state income tax on your federal form the same year...or something like that. Otherwise, you could theoretically overpay the state 100% of your income, claim $0 federal tax, then get a state refund.

    18. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is - you claim more dependents. Doesnt matter if it isnt accurate until you actually file - the number you claim on your W2/4 determines how much is withheld.

    19. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, your state withholding will be based on the W-4 you gave your employer. Yes, that's a Federal form for Federal withholding, but in most cases it's used to calculate state withholding as well. Since most state income taxes are based off federal income taxes (my Viriginia state tax form asks me to start with my Federal Adjusted Gross Income and then has me calculate based on the differences between Virginia and Federal income taxes) this usually works out pretty well.

    20. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Uhh, pretty sure they don't do that, actually. If they did, no-one with any brains would end the year with the IRS owing them money.

    21. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by tibit · · Score: 1

      Now if only the federal taxes were calculated exactly like the state taxes, so that the appropriate federal exemption count was exactly applicable to your state taxes. Hmm.

      Well, no, it doesn't work that way, unless your tax situation is very simplistic. There can be plenty of federal credits that have no analogs in the state tax code, so in order not to underpay on the state taxes you're forced to overpay on federal tax. Or you must pay estimated state taxes quarterly, and that's extra hassle.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    22. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by tibit · · Score: 1

      Since most state income taxes are based off federal income taxes

      That works only if you have no significant federal credits. Anyone with a mortgage, and especially with a mortgage credit certificate, is screwed, then, because the state-federal equivalency breaks down and you are forced to either overpay federal or underpay state. You can of course send estimated payments to the state so as not to underpay them, but that's extra paperwork that shouldn't be necessary if the idiots in charge just were bright enough to put to fields on W-4 instead of just one.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    23. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope we can all agree with that too. There seem to be similarities to the feudal system of the Middle Ages. Nobles and Lords collaborating with The Church. Those were the two most powerful entities at the time. Sometimes their interests conflicted but usually, their interests were aligned. Both needed the other to survive.

      I see a similar symbiotic relationship between unions and big employers. If workers are over-paid, the company loses money and lays off, possibly dies. Less money (blood) is pumping through the economy to keep it alive. If workers are under-paid, again, less pumping through the economy. Balance is everything and the best achievable and sustainable goal. If a big company dies, you suddenly have lots of unemployment. If a small company dies, the dent on the economy is smaller. This is another area that should be balanced, # of people employed by small companies vs. # of people employed by big companies. Honestly, the most stable economy possible would be composed of nothing but small companies operating locally. Changes to economy occur in smaller increments and there is more time to see a developing pattern and react to it. Of course, there are 'drawbacks' such as higher prices / less buying power but these are not cataclysmic, 'super nova' events. It's just a different way of life. It just requires more budgeting and frugality on the part of the individual.

    24. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 100% corporate feudalism is such a better option.

    25. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      My different recipe is Modern Whig. Libertarians are starting to scare me as much as the big two.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    26. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting for libertarian is like putting felons in charge of the prison. See the results you get.

    27. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by mikestew · · Score: 1

      It's worse because it actually happens. The IRS does not count your tax refund as taxable income.

    28. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

        . . . And people who should know agree.

    29. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oklahoma is very highly ranked #5 on the Libertarian freedom scale.

    30. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The results you will get with Libertarians are big businesses becoming more powerful than the government, thus becoming the de facto goverment with the civil government becoming just a figurehead for the corporate interests. In the end there is nothing separating a Republican and Libertarian in this case. You can elect and change your government, you cannot with big business.

    31. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, just look at how well things are working in --

      That's funny. I can't think of a single country in the world that is run according to libertarian principles.

    32. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because nothing could be more anti-corporate than Libertarianism.

    33. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are for big business (as is some democrats), Democrats are for big government

      No they aren't, you dumb fuck. Those things are just possible side effects of what they *are* for. No liberals sit around saying, "oh hey, we sure do need a bigger government!" Instead, they say "it sure would be great if we could have a centrally organized, regulated body that would plan and maintain the highway system, or healthcare system." Similarly for conservatives, though most of their arguments are pretty much incoherent straw men opposed to the goals that liberals have.

      Using (and possibly increasing the size of) the government is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I really don't understand how goddamn stupid someone has to be to actually believe the shit you type, but you say it over and over again as if you're right, and get modded up for it as if it honestly provides food for thought.

    34. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the RefundCard.pdf you linked:
      Deposit or cash your debit card free at banks or financial institutions that accept MasterCard;

      Once your card is active, go to a bank and withdraw the balance for free.

      I had to do the same thing with my TX unemployment in 2009. Never paid a fee to get my money and I was unemployed for 8 months.

      Avoiding the fees is possible. It's just not as convenient as you'd like.

      That said, I agree it's a crock.

    35. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians are for big business and no government. Hardly ideal.

    36. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope this is a joke.

    37. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by njnnja · · Score: 1

      That $0.75 looks like a lot to you because you are used to "free"* checking where it costs you nothing* to keep your money in the bank. For the unbanked population (unbanked because they don't have enough savings to qualify for free* checking, or are illegal immigrants), $0.75 is way cheaper than the check cashing services that you find throughout the inner city. And much safer than taking home a wad of cash on a predictable pattern.

      Having said that, There needs to be some precautions that forbid an employer from forcing an employee into a particular card service (i.e., the one that gives the employer the biggest kickbacks). Maybe like a 401k, where the employee can pick from a menu of cards. Although even the 401k analogy is poor because while the underlying funds may come from different companies, in general, the 401k provider themselves are a monopoly chosen by the employer and if you don't like it, tough.

      *There is (almost) no such thing as "free" checking. Almost every checking account has some way that, in theory, your bank can charge you minimum balance fees or overdraft fees, etc. It is not easy to always follow every rule in the agreement, and although most of us will blow off a $10 minimum balance fee or an overdraft line with a 20% interest rate, to the poor the $0.75 will cost them less over time than all of the nickel and diming that comes with a "free" checking account. At least the latest generation of prepaid cards is (mostly) honest and upfront about the fact that they are providing you a service (safe, convenient access to your money) and you pay for it directly instead of indirectly.

    38. Re:State of Oklahoma as well by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      There are 20 locations in Tulsa, they have to have the "Moneypass" logo on them. Oddly enough, Google maps show 0 in Oklahoma, even though their website shows almost all WalMart ATM's are Moneypass compliant.

  14. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by michrech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I should have mentioned -- I'm also paid via direct deposit. If my 'default' pay were via one of these crappy cards, I'd do *whatever* paperwork was needed to get a normal check or direct deposit...

    --
    bork bork bork!
  15. Already in the courts by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    McDonald's is being sued for allegedly paying less than minimum wage using this method.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Already in the courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At corporate McDonald's they offer check or direct deposit only.

  16. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by emagery · · Score: 2

    I kinda like bi-weekly, myself... I budget myself around the idea of 24 (2x12) paychecks... but GET 26... which means two paychecks are entirely outside of the budget and are free-for-alls, basically.

  17. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what you are saying is that you lack budgeting skills, and prefer to spend whimsically without future regard of yourself. WHICH IS OK, but don't make being paid monthly sound like a bad thing. because it's not

  18. Perfect is the enemy of good. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The system of prepaid cards with fees is not the perfect solution for poor workers. But it is better than the old system of paying them with checks. Free checking is not available in most banks. Even when there is an allegedly "free" checking account it comes with a large minimum balance requirement. Fall below that and you trigger monthly fees. Further many people, mostly undocumented, don't have bank accounts and they use check cashing services that charge as much as 10% as the fees. So compared to those situations the prepaid card with fees is actually better.

    The check cashing services are also closely allied with the pay day loan services that charge interests that work out to something like 240% on annualized basis. These check cashing services are one of the main opponents of Wall street reform, they are very well organized and media savvy. I would not be surprised if this sudden interest in prepaid card fees and the media blitz is actually organized by these loan sharks.

    It costs money to process these transactions. It is not as much as the banks charge as fees and the fees can be unreasonably high. But still that is not as bad as what these check cashing services charge. I would rather work towards giving the regular banks some tax incentives to provide these prepaid cards without fees when they were given as wages for people below poverty line. Killing the whole idea of prepaid cards or demonizing the employers who provide them will prove to be very counterproductive.

    Please educate yourself about the plight of the poor at the hands of check cashing services on one hand, checking account with fees on the other hand, people not having fixed addresses or visas who can not open bank accounts in the first place before jumping on the band wagon denouncing the wage card with fees or the employers who provide them.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So....pay them in cash...?

    2. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand them a big bag of cash. Its not the workers fault/problem that the country club set has made it diffcult for them to be paid in the most convenient method for the employer. Make in inconvenient for the employers and then things will change.

    3. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if they have work permits then surely they can get a banking account? I mean, it's not like USA is saudi.. seems to me that the government should have gone for promoting paying wages to bank account. I mean, fuck, they want to know my banking even when my banking is happening in Finland then surely they could see the benefits for IRS from everybody's wages being paid to their bank accounts..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re: Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We should require payers, not employees, to pay any transaction costs. Anything else is NOT charity.

    5. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only a problem for people who don't shop around, or have bad credit. Sure you get hit with a fee at the bank if you fall below minimum balance, but it's like $10 /mo. That's a heck of a lot less than what you get gouged for by these check cashing outfits. Mostly the people getting clobbered by those guys are the same people cashing bad checks and not paying their bills. In other words, as it should be.

    6. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      The system of prepaid cards with fees is not the perfect solution for poor workers. But it is better than the old system of paying them with checks. Free checking is not available in most banks.

      Then why not fix that problem? You also enable poor people to pay bills electronically, buy things online, etc.

      British banks have to* offer a "basic bank account", which has no fees (as normal in the UK) but doesn't allow any borrowing, and so doesn't require a credit check. If you have a valid identity document, and don't have "multiple convictions for fraud", you can get one: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts

      It's not that well publicised. For a while, I lived with some Eastern European immigrants in a cheap flatshare in London. They were keeping cash under the bed, but they all were able to open a basic account.

      *As is often the case in the UK, instead of a law or regulation the industry is doing something on the understanding that if they didn't, there'd be a regulation, and it'd be worse for them.

    7. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No doubt about it. Check cashing is a lucrative business. It's not just check cashing services either. A lot of pawn shops will cash your pay check for a ridiculous fee with minimal identification. Back in the early 90's I worked at a very old pawn shop in Houston for about a year. It was a terrible job that paid well but left me feeling like I always needed a shower. You basically just take complete advantage of people who are very desperate for money and who don't understand how much money you're charging them. Every Friday we'd get a flood of guys (many didn't speak English) coming in to cash very small paychecks that they worked very hard for. You would charge them 10% of what the check was and a surprising number of people were totally fine with that.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    8. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This entire wall of text is simply false ....

      Nearly all nationwide big banks offer free checking and while most accounts do have a sizable minimum deposit, those are ALWAYS waived if you sign up for direct deposit into the account you're opening, then minimum deposit is like 50 or 100$

    9. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free checking is not available in most banks. Even when there is an allegedly "free" checking account it comes with a large minimum balance requirement.

      Please educate yourself about the plight of the poor at the hands of check cashing services

      Seen from Europe, the US banking system looks somewhat like the US infrastructure, that is: having missed quite some long-due overhauls.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    10. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The credit unions in my state have $25 minimum savings balance, no minimum checking balance, and free checking.
      Why anyone would ever give a dime to a bank is beyond me.

    11. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by alen · · Score: 1

      they used to do this in the military decades ago. the result was that lots of soldiers would get robbed on pay day. the thieves would wait for them outside the base

    12. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      So you are justifying the greed of employers with the greed of banks?

      It used to be that you could cash pay checks (at least from the bank used by the employer) without paying a fee or having an account yourself. Since I entered the workforce, this has changed. Now banks (including the bank that the employer is using) will require that you have an account, or that you pay a fee, or both.

    13. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      So till all these companies gird up to make cash payments, the poor workers should suffer at the hands of the bloodsuckers? This is precisely what I mean by perfect being enemy of good.

      It is like code release. Perfection is the goal. Better than last release is the shipping criterion.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    14. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What happened to paying in cash?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    15. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Formorian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Um I worked in banking all though College part time for 7 years (day off for half saturday work to get all my homework done). Every Bank i worked at had free checking with 0 min balance.

      Maybe it's a state thing, but NY i'm pretty sure every bank has to offer a free checking account, no min balance (maybe $100 to open but you can go to $0.01 without penalty/closing it).

      Also, why do people still use banks, use a credit union. Better terms/fee's/interest rates/etc. Don't know why people are still using banks.

      Next, most of those cards have free use. Free wherever mastercard/visa is. If you want the cash, you can go to banks that do credit card advances, and get the cash most times.

      Someone posted about OK's tax refund from their website:

      You can use the card anywhere MasterCard is accepted. At the gas station, grocery store, department store, on-line store and many more. You can also take the card and PIN number to any bank or credit union that accepts MasterCard and ask the teller for the full amount of the card balance in cash or deposit it into your checking or savings account. You can also withdraw funds from the card free of charge from any MoneyPass ATM location in Oklahoma.

      I know in NY NY issues benefits for Workers Comp/Disability on Master Card state cards. They would come in and withdraw the full amount without fee's.

    16. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck if you're on Chex Systems, even through no fault of your own.

    17. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Sorry meant to put this about the OK tax thing, the question was:

      How can I use my refund debit card free of charge?

      then taht's the answer. Every card like this issued has some form of means of getting the cash for free.

    18. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Free checking is not available in most banks.

      It's available in basically every national bank chain and pretty much every credit union I've ever checked with. You pretty much have to go out of your way to find a bank that doesn't offer free checking.

      Even when there is an allegedly "free" checking account it comes with a large minimum balance requirement.

      The highest I've ever seen is $500. And even that usually gets waived if you sign up with the bank through an employer deal.

    19. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checks can be cashed at the bank they are written from FOR FREE without a back account. There is no excuse for using a "check card" or "debt card" with a fee to pay employees except to get a kickback. These cards are not a good solution.

      Educate yourself before spewing bullshit.

    20. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by green1 · · Score: 1

      I've never had anything to do with any of these cheque cashing places, but I think the reason they were happy with the 10% was that it was pretty low for the industry. I've seen advertising recently offering "$200 cashed for only $20" (with fine print saying only available on your fist chequ and only one time) so I'm assuming that the 10% is not the norm and is in fact much lower than the norm.

      Of course I've also always had no fee bank accounts and a basic understanding of the process of budgeting, so it's never been a big deal to me...

    21. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      I've heard it said that the only reason that credit cards were invented was to work around the horrors of the US check system...

      Rgds

      Damon

      PS. Here the usual case for salaried or contract work is monthly payment by "direct deposit" (BACS) or sometimes cheque; I've only ever (automatically) been paid weekly that I can recall, by a company that I thought was going to collapse before the end of the week several times so weekly was a small comfort...

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    22. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You are correct, check cashing places are on par with "payday lenders" as the lowest of the low when it comes to exploiting the working poor.

      I have difficulty believing that aside from the most remote enclaves of humanity, the working poor in the US don't have access to banks or credit unions. This is speculation on my part, I admit that, but I would guess that the bigger problem is the lack of financial education for the poor. When you're more worried about where your next meal is coming from, it's less important to compare fee schedules from financial institutions.

      Even a $5.00/month fee for a checking account is still better than the $2.00/transaction that they would get hit with by these rip-off cards,

      I'd be less inclined to give the banks incentives. If it were my decision(admittedly it is not), I'd mandate that these cards have maximum fees capped at something like $4.00/month per card. Let the banks negotiate with Visa/MC for a little slice of the 2-4% on credit transactions that they'll make on purchases.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    23. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by ildon · · Score: 1

      Good luck paying your bills in cash in 2013.

    24. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by stinkbomb · · Score: 1

      And how is that helpful if the employer's bank is out of state?

    25. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      What happened to paying in cash?

      Performing any transaction other than an in-person sale via cash is *heavily* discouraged in the US, for a variety of reasons. For one, the government frowns on it because it is a great route for money laundering and tax evasion. Paying people's wages and salaries in cash has been close to non-existant for decades.

    26. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Sure, but:

      1) You have to have excess liquidity to be able to have a bank account. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, leaving money in a bank account is an extravagance.

      2) Fees. Unless you maintain a minimum balance, many banks charge fees. See above.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    27. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....pay them in cash...?

      Back in the 80s when I worked at K-mart, they paid everyone in cash. Guess the theory was it would be that much easier to spend it on the way out of the store.

    28. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tibit · · Score: 1

      You bounce too many checks and no bank will open a checking account for you. The companies that have databases of those happenings are not subject to the same regulation as the credit reporting agencies, so you're essentially without recourse unless you can afford a lawyer to bring in a civil suit.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    29. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by nbritton · · Score: 1

      The system of prepaid cards with fees is not the perfect solution for poor workers. But it is better than the old system of paying them with checks. Free checking is not available in most banks. Even when there is an allegedly "free" checking account it comes with a large minimum balance requirement. Fall below that and you trigger monthly fees. Further many people, mostly undocumented, don't have bank accounts and they use check cashing services that charge as much as 10% as the fees.

      Most credit unions have free checking with no minimum, credit union membership typically only requires $20 in a savings account. It is unlawful to employ undocumented workers in the united states, and being an undocumented immigrant is a class d felony... I don't see how that can be used as justification to support this. Furthermore check cashing places are willing to deposit the funds directly onto a prepaid cards, I recall that Walmart does this.

    30. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      they used to do this in the military decades ago. the result was that lots of soldiers would get robbed on pay day. the thieves would wait for them outside the base

      Many years ago in my city there was a large construction project that was adjacent to the City's red light district. The construction workers were all paid in cash every friday, and the prostitutes used to line up nearby waiting for them...

    31. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Alas, most people cashing bad checks and not paying their bills do that because they simply can't afford otherwise. Now I'm not saying that there's a large group of dumbfucks out there who have the means to be current on everything but chose to do otherwise due to laziness and/or stupidity. This certainly happens and you can read a lot about it. Heck, my neighbor is a nurse and he has bad credit in spite of earning ~$80k/year. He simply can't get himself to pay the bills! He'll let the bills accumulate for a couple of months, then when he feels like it he'll pay them. He also has a whole lot of useless crap that he buys. So yes, I do realize there's many people like that. But for most, it's simply that their minimum wage doesn't pay enough, and no matter what they'd "cut", they can't, short of living on the street.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Said someone who is obviously rich enough not to run into the trouble the poor run into. Protip: bounce once check too many and you're done with checking accounts, possibly for life. I'm serious. You have to get there to believe it, maybe, in your case.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    33. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tibit · · Score: 1

      For those who live payday-to-payday, week-to-week, putting $25 aside may be hard. On top of that, many credit unions will not open an account if you have a history of bounced checks, just like mainstream banks won't.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    34. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Checks can be cashed at the bank they are written from FOR FREE without a back account.

      That's if you actually have a branch of that bank where it's convenient. Gas is not free, and sometimes a large multi-state employer may use a bank that doesn't have branches in your city, in your county, or even in your state.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    35. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      NPR had a story about this a little while back. It's designed to cut costs for the employers, not for anyone else. Furthermore, the card providers set up their fee structure so that they recoup their money via fees. In essence, the cost of the payment system is moved from the employer to the employee. This lead to some particularly egregious things like a state handing out welfare payment cards where the card provider got an upfront payment for anybody trying to access their welfare payment (this includes retirement benefits).

      Yes, this can (key word: can) help people who do not have access to a traditional checking account. But it will not work out for anybody who either has the foresight or the ability to go for direct deposit or check deposits. And for it to work out for the truly indigent, the fee structure has to be better than that of a check casher. And that's completely open to debate, especially since fees for payroll cards can be structured to be small but everywhere. Which it seems is exactly what is happening.

      I'm glad this story is getting more traction, because this is pretty much just a way for big card providers to act like pay-day loan providers.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    36. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck paying your bills in cash in 2013.

      I guarantee you nobody has ever refused to take cash in payment for your bills. They're legally required to, that's the meaning of legal tender.

    37. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Some states require banks to pay "payroll" checks with NO FEE at all, at least up to some certain amounts. So let's tell Republicans to stick it up their @@@@ and make this law nationwide, with penalties like a day in jail per incident.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    38. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government should ensure that everyone can have a bank account where they can withdraw cash and receive incoming domestic transfers without fees. This might involve some kind of partnership with one or more banks, or it might involve a government bank with very limited service (receive domestic transfers + pay out cash). Make it mandatory for employers to deposit pay into a bank account of the employee's choice, unless the employee requests otherwise in writing. Problem 100% solved. The convenience of illegal work shouldn't be an argument for or against how lawful employees are paid.

    39. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People living paycheck-to-paycheck sorta by definition don't have $50-$100 to leave in a bank account to satisfy the minimum deposit requirements. Predatory practices like those being discussed in the article are part of the reason why it's so hard to save money when poor: being poor is expensive .

    40. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by MrNemesis · · Score: 2

      Can someone in the US explain what is happening here? Does "checking account" mean that users are typically paid in cheques, and if so why isn't this feasible for low-wage workers? And that you have to pay the banks to *deposit* your money?!

      I'm based in the UK, where almost everyone is paid via BACS or occasionally CHAPS straight into their bank account, from friends in the rest of europe it's exactly the same there, is this not done in the US?

      I did a study in my history class about John "Iron Mad" Wilkinson who was a huge proponent of company shops and worker tokens, the concept filled me with horror even as a child.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    41. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      I knew a dude hiding from the IRS. Issuing banks are required to honor their checks. They may not like it, but eventually they will cash checks. Even five figure checks.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can get a bank account. Not everyone wants to pay the fees for keeping a bank account. Not everyone makes enough to keep tied up in a bank account. Not everyone wants to risk their money in a bank. Not everyone wants a bank tracking them. Not everyone wants to get this spammy special offers in the mail all the time.

      Many years ago my then employer, employer of over 20000 people, "blew" a payroll (accidentally transferred money to the wrong account). All the direct deposits were reversed the next Monday, and many accounts became overdraw as a result (because these people had spent more than their previous balance over the weekend). I was lucky that I still got a paper check, AND I cashed it at the employer's bank before the SHTF, and deposited the money in MY OWN bank on the other corner of the same block (as I did every pay period). The mess was "fixed" by Wednesday and all the direct deposits were re-instated. But people had in some cases months of trouble with banks trying to undo the fee mess that was caused. Although the banks receiving the deposits were told about what happened, they were not required to just cancel the fees. Most did. A few did not. And the mess propagated to other banks and accounts as well.

      I still get my pay in the form of a check. I don't trust any other method.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    43. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The check cashing services are also closely allied with the pay day loan services that charge interests that work out to something like 240% on annualized basis.

      Except they're not intended to be used on an annualized basis. If a loan of $100 is made for 30 days, what is the proper fee to charge? 240% would be $20.

      It costs money to process these transactions.

      Correct. What is the proper fee on a $100 30-day loan? Count teller time, paperwork processing costs, non-repayment losses, and a profit that can keep the business open.

      It is not as much as the banks charge as fees and the fees can be unreasonably high.

      A bounced check can easily be $30 overdraft + $40 returned check fee at a bank.

      But still that is not as bad as what these check cashing services charge.

      oh?

      Please educate yourself about the plight of the poor at the hands of check cashing services on one hand, checking account with fees on the other hand

      Agreed. See your wise subject line.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    44. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      In fact it should be LAW that as part of this you as an employer have an agreement with a designated bank to provide no fee checking (when you open the account as part of a Direct Deposit setup).

      the "paperwork" for setting up direct deposit should be as simple as

      Oggs Name : Oggs number with War Council (to make sure the right Ogg get dah moneys)
      Oggs Bank Name: Oggs Bank account number : how much of Oggs pay goes here ....
      Oggs Bank Name: Oggs Checking Account Number : whats left of Oggs check goes here

      legal jibberish to make this a legal form (note for Thud take club to that squinty guy)

      Dah Date Oggs Name Oggs Mark

      and in this day and age this should all be on some sort of web/net interface

      oh btw did you know that an AMEX prepaid does not have monthly fees??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    45. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      The greater problem banks have in the USA is people depositing bad checks, and pulling the money out and the check bounces later as fraudulent. And "later" is not the period for the check to clear. It can be a check written on someone else's account, and that victim has more days (usually at least 90) to report the fraud. So by the time the bad check comes back to they perp's bank account, the money is gone.

      The banks COULD get around this better by creating "direct deposit only" accounts AND make it so that ANY check or ATM withdrawal fails if it would overdraw the account by even a penny. Trouble is, they can't even do that. Many ATMs do not actually contact the bank in real time (banks are not always contactable, but have "pay anyway" agreements with the ATM servicer when the bank is unreachable). That's their dirty little secret. That's why many have withdrawal limits. It would raise the cost of ATMs to fix that.

      BTW, there are ways to cheat even the pre-paid cards. That's why the employers have to give name AND SSN of the person "holding" the card. And if someone else cheats them on your card, YOU are responsible and there are cases of people being sued for negative card balances caused by criminals. yes, the money on many these cards can be withdrawn in Lagos, Nigeria.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    46. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I opened my credit union account when I was 11. That original $25 is still there.
      Maybe I was bothered about giving up my life savings at that age, but I certainly don't miss it now.

    47. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, they will take cash ... at their downtown office 9-5 M-F only. They will also charge a convenience fee for such a service.

      Or more likely you will end up paying your bills at the friendly neighborhood check cashing joint.

    48. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how a paper check protects you from this scenario. It still can be "reversed".

      Also banks love to delay deposits for mysterious reasons if it would cause your checks to bounce.

    49. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get a partnership with a credit union? I pay $1 a month for my checking account, for unlimited everything, or you could pay nothing for a savings account.

    50. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Asgard · · Score: 1

      They may be required to accept cash, but it can be very inconvenient. Cash transferred via 3rd parties (mail, drop-box, etc) could be pocketed'/lost' before it gets credited to your account, leaving you to pay the bill again plus late fees with no recourse as there is no paper trail. The alternative of spending a solid weekday (not everyone has a weekend office open) each month traveling to places where you can hand the cash to a person/machine and get an immediate receipt is not practical for many.

    51. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by QuesarVII · · Score: 1

      It's always free to cash a check at the issuing bank. Problem solved.

    52. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Your point about check cashing services is valid, but I checks are not as bad as you claim:

      Free checking is not available in most banks

      1) I disagree. For the last 20 years I have always had a 100% free checking account with no minimum balance requirement. I've never even had to shop for it, because every bank I have been to has it. The catch is that they offer no interest. But someone in the position you are referring too probably doesn't have much savings anyway. Perhaps free checking is more common in the Northeast US than the rest of the country?
      2) Irrelevant - You don't need a checking account to cash a check.

      Further many people, mostly undocumented, don't have bank accounts

      If they are undocumented, they are getting paid cash under the table anyway. Otherwise, their employer is doing something illegal.

    53. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      So, how about CREDIT UNIONS? Two of my former employers made deals with local credit unions for free checking accounts if you set up direct deposit.

      I'll never BANK with a BANK again. Banks suck.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMehSfTmnbY

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    54. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by zlogic · · Score: 1

      It's not that well publicised. For a while, I lived with some Eastern European immigrants in a cheap flatshare in London. They were keeping cash under the bed, but they all were able to open a basic account.

      Some people don't trust banks, especially if they lived in a Soviet Union-related contry. They had a history of decreasing your savings either by government order (to keep everyone equal) or simply because they f*cked up investing your money.

    55. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check cashing services go for 1 to 2% in my area. Often making the Asian gas station a cheaper place to cash my check than the bank that issued it. To say nothing of recurring transaction fees on a card.

      Otherwise I am sure you had a point.

    56. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called a Credit Union. No bank needed.

      $5.00 keeps your account open, less than a pack of cigarettes, latte or 6-pack of beer.

    57. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by xianzombie · · Score: 1

      Bear with me, cuz I'm not familiar with BACS or CHAPS (or anything other than the US banking system). Having just 'skimmed' the articles, I can make a completely inaccurate attempt at breaking down my paycheck, banking.

      1. I get paid via Direct Deposit on the 15th and last business day of each month. I think this is a bit like BACS, in that my employer does ???? a few days before my payday, and on the 15th (or often, the business day before) money magically arrives in my bank account (technically, a credit union)

      2. My accounts: I have a Checking acct and a Savings acct. Direct Deposited pay goes to the checking account. I rarely write cheques/checks anymore, but the Mastercard debit card is linked to this account. Payments with the card are more "CHAPS-like" Some of my physical checks will cash on an Automatic Clearing House rather than waiting in limbo. Checks to my kid's daycare however tend to take about 7+ days to clear. I could pay them with the credit/debit card and have it withdrawn immediately, but they [the daycare] charge an extra $5 per transaction to do so to offset their 'per transaction fee' they have to pay for processing.

      The Savings Acct. defaults to being protection if I overdraft from my checking. Other than that, it offers a pathetic interest rate as an incentive to save $$$ and bank with them.

      In the US, some small companies and/or low wage jobs have physical checks given to the employee that they must cash. Problem is, most banks/credit unions won't cash checks unless you're already a member of their bank. Hence the pawn shops, payday loan, and check cashing locations save the day by offering check cashing services for x% of your hard earned paycheck.

      I've also seen (Walmart?) offer "Free" check cashing, so long as you spent some percentage of said check at their store the same day.

    58. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually, if youre paid in cash, that means its under the table. Cash payouts are hard to do when you also have to give employees full breakdowns of any and all withholding.

    59. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tjb · · Score: 2

      A "checking account" in the US is a demand deposit account that the depositor can write checks against and virtually always comes with an ATM/debit card as well. It never costs money to deposit money to this account, but if you do not maintain a minimum balance (usually $500 or $1000), there may be a nominal monthly fee.

      The vast majority of people in the US and probably 99.9% of the slashdot crowd get paid via direct deposit via the ACH (automated clearing house). The exceptions tend to be people who work in cash businesses (bartenders earning tips, handyman types, etc.) and people who do not or cannot have a checking account. Generally speaking, those who cannot have a checking account are either illegal immigrants or people who have either committed bank fraud or have absolutely dismal credit. Those who do not (but can) have checking accounts are either very young and haven't gotten around to it or are dodging tax liens, alimony, or other court judgments and are trying to hide their money from authorities.

      In the absence of a deposit account, most employers used to issue paper checks which would then be cashed by shady operators for scandalously high fees (in part due to the prevalence of fraud, because remember - they are dealing with the subset of people who cannot get a bank account, a large percentage of which is due to fraud issues). These cards are actually probably lower fee than the previous status quo and allow things like online transactions that most of the employees who receive these would have been hard-pressed to do without a bank account.

      For many people in low-wage, low-skill work, particularly if they are young or have gotten themselves into severe financial trouble, these cards are probably not a bad option. If its the only option, though, that can certainly be a problem, but that seems to be fairly limited (the article mentions a single McDonalds franchise owner who is actually forcing these cards) and for 90%+ of US workers, this is a complete non-issue.

    60. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly why income/payroll tax is stupid. Get rid of these and introduce a national sales tax with exceptions for staple foods or whatever you need to make it suitably progressive for your preference. We will regain the millions of lost man-hours required to deal with our current tax system, in addition to capturing a huge amount of revenue from the proceeds of gray/black market activity.

    61. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Does "checking account" mean that users are typically paid in cheques

      No, a checking account is a bank account that someone uses to write personal checks against. This is in contrast to a savings account where money can only be removed via either an ATM or in-bank transaction.

      The act of being paid directly into a bank account rather than receiving a payroll check is called direct deposit. Often, you may only have direct deposit set up for a checking account so people that have ruined their relationship with banks with regards to checking accounts (too many bad checks, still owe fees, etc..) cannot utilize direct deposit.

      I don't know about the rest of the world, but the United States also has a significant number of people called the unbanked who do not maintain any bank accounts at all.

      I have never written a bad check on my healthy checking account, and yet still I do not utilize direct deposit even though my employer offers it because I do not see any value to automating this part of my life. I only visit the bank approximately once per month, depositing several payroll checks at the same time. This is a trip I would be making to the bank anyways because there is one bill I will only ever pay using a money order, which are similar in utility to checks but carry no personally identifying information, something I do not want to receiver to have.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    62. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the poor who do their banking through loanshark check cashiers do so out of ignorance and laziness. You have to have supremely fucked up credit to not be able to get a checking account.. .even then there is usually a grocery store in town who will cash checks with reasonable fees. Even the local crackhead dive bar here won't take anything except cash but they have a short list of folks who they'll cash paychecks for.

      So if I work for these employers and have good credit, they get a kickback, steal part of my check, have me doing business with folks who take any chance to knock me with a fee... and add an additional loop for me to jump through if I need to use a real bank account with features like autobill pay, overdraft protection and text notifications which have made late fees and NSF fees a part of the past for me. (When I'm fairly sloppy that way too).. The plight of the poor is that shit like this keeps them poor as fuck. Fee on your check, fee to withdraw, fee when you run out of cash because you got the two previous fees and now you only get to keep 2/3rds of your next check because you've ran yourself in the hole getting a $20 x 2 NSF fee (A whole day's take home for most poor) on a pack of gum and a dollar menu sandwich that cost less than 3 bux.

    63. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cash the check at the issuing bank and then walk the cash to your own separate bank, who is going to reverse what?

    64. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checking accounts are accounts you can write cheques (checks) from. The contrast is a savings account, where you can only deposit or withdraw - you can't directly pay someone like you can with a check. Because of that, most people put their paychecks (paid from a checking account) into their checking account. If you don't have a bank account, you typically get a paper check and then go to the bank to have it cashed. Most banks will cash the check that their customer (the payer) wrote, even if they payee doesn't have an account there. Now we're moving to direct deposit, which is just like that but minus the paper and you going to the bank. I think the equivalent to BACS is ACH in the US.

    65. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meh. Good financial planning would get you out of the hole. It's stupidity that keeps you there. For example, from that article:

      But the high cost of poverty was brought home to me within a few days of my entry into the low-wage life, when, slipping into social-worker mode, I chastised a co-worker for living in a motel room when it would be so much cheaper to rent an apartment. Her response: Where would she get the first month's rent and security deposit it takes to pin down an apartment? The lack of that amount of capital -- probably well over $1,000 -- condemned her to paying $40 a night at the Day's Inn.

      So, she's paying $1200 a month to live in a hotel, because she 'can't' get $1000 together for a security deposit? How about crash a a friends place for a single month? That'll free up $1200, more than enough!! She can spend the month looking for the apartment, too!

      I had gone into the project imagining myself preparing vast quantities of cheap, nutritious soups and stews, which I would freeze and heat for dinner each day. But surprise: I didn't have the proverbial pot to pee in,

      'A pot to piss in' is the phrase. Perhaps if she were a better writer, she'd have a better (and higher paying) job??

      not to mention spices or Tupperware. A scouting trip to K-Mart established that it would take about a $40 capital investment to get my kitchenette up to speed for the low-wage way of life.

      Sheesh, make the 'stews and soups' WITHOUT spices for the first month. It won't kill you. Honest. As for plastic storage containers ("Tupperware" is a trademark), a bowl with plastic wrap ($0.99 a roll at the dollar store) over it will work just fine.

      The food situation got only more challenging when I, too, found myself living in a motel. Lacking a fridge and microwave, all my food had to come from the nearest convenience store (hardboiled eggs and banana for breakfast) or, for the big meal of the day, Wendy's or KFC.

      Again, living from a motel is stupid. Eating fast food/convenience store crap is even stupider. This article really should be called "The high cost of being stupid."

      If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone.

      Um... people did survive for thousands of years without cell phones. ...and so on. It's POOR CHOICES that cost a lot, not BEING POOR.

    66. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Um if they are undocumented isn't it illegal to hire and thus pay them? What wrong with a check drawn on a local bank? I've worked in multiple buildings with credit unions these seems to be a great fit have an account with one and have not payed a fee in the 13 years I've had the account.

      In an age when I can made a check deposit with my phone all these cards seem to be is a way to fleece the people that work for you.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    67. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Seen from the US, Europe's economy is 20+ years behind

    68. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "checking account" means the money can be used to write cheques to others as opposed to a "savings account". There are various "checking account" fees, like the cost of checkbooks full of paper cheques & "Overdraft fees". Usually, "direct deposit" is only offered into a "checking account".

    69. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the equivalent to BACS is ACH in the US.

      ACH is Automated Clearing House
      BACS is Bankers' Automated Clearing Services
      CHAPS is Clearing House Automated Payment System

      They're all equivalent systems.

    70. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a bank simply because I travel a lot and am not guaranteed to be anywhere close to the same credit union for more than three straight months at a time.

    71. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      Seen from Europe, this article and pretty much every comment here induces a very big WTF.

    72. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all of a sudden those in power will stop buying the majority of their capital.
      They'll still have it, but it will be gifted to them by friends, or they'll buy it for a dollar but will also sell them stocks for a dollar, or they'll hire someone to "make" it for them in the same way that assembled in the USA. There are loopholes big enough to ride a yacht through.

      in addition to capturing a huge amount of revenue from the proceeds of gray/black market activity.

      What? Black markets will explode in popularity. You effectively give them an extra 30% edge over the legit guys. You'll never be sure if you're finding a good deal or it's someone shirking uncle Sam. Until they get busted and your package never shows up.

    73. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The system of prepaid cards with fees is not the perfect solution for poor workers. But it is better than the old system of paying them with checks.

      The old system before that was paying in cash. In New York State, they also had an option where the employer could pay in cash, and the employee could go to a nearby bank (usually in the same building) and cash his check there, without a fee.

      I don't see anything wrong with paying employees by prepaid cards, if they can cash the cards with no effort in a form they prefer. But according to the NYT article, that's not the way they do it.

      You are correct about the minimum balance requirements for checking accounts in banks. You are also correct about the check cashing services.

    74. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Bank of America.

      Since 2008, they charge payees $6.00 to cash a check drawn against a Bank of America account if the payee does not also have a Bank of America account.

      Pretty sure they're not the only ones to do this.

      Nonsense indeed.

    75. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Checks can be cashed at the bank they are written from FOR FREE without a back account.

      Not at Bank of America, they can't - and probably others as well.

      Educate yourself before spewing bullshit.

      Indeed.

    76. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      In the absence of a deposit account, most employers used to issue paper checks which would then be cashed by shady operators for scandalously high fees (in part due to the prevalence of fraud, because remember - they are dealing with the subset of people who cannot get a bank account, a large percentage of which is due to fraud issues).

      This is not entirely true.

      You can also take the check to the company's bank, and cash it for free. And many states require the employer use a bank with branches located a reasonable distance from the business.

      On the other hand, "bankers hours" don't always allow the worker to do this.

    77. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Korea had an interesting solution to the money laundering/tax evasion problem. Simply put, any time you paid with cash, you could have a 'cash receipt' generated, right at the cashier. This would report your cash transaction directly to the tax department, and in exchange, you would receive a tax credit equalling 1% of your purchases.

      Worked pretty well, as I recall. Over a whole year, you could rack up quite the little tax break.

    78. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at Bank of America, which charges between $8 and $10 to cash my employer's check there. I needed it cashed when I was in the process of moving and switching banks and wasn't sure if my funds would be available yet at the new bank.

    79. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Close to non-existent?" No way! Paying for wages and services in cash happens all the time in certain business sectors... but it's usually done to keep said transactions off the tax rolls.

    80. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A checking account means the person with the account can write a physical paper check. Still a pretty common way of paying bills. Write a check, put postage on it, and mail it into the electric co., or whoever. It's pretty easy to write bad checks and have them bounce.

      A savings account means you have to withdraw your money with a debit card, at an atm, or in person from a teller.

      Many banks won't deal with people who are labeled as bad risks. Those who've closed an account at another bank with a negative balance, or written too many rubber checks. This is true of checking and savings accounts. So if you can't open an account at a bank, your options for getting your money if it's not presented to you as cash are severely limited.

      Without a bank account it generally costs $$ to cash checks. A whole industry has grown around charging largish fees just to cash a person's check. They generally also offer high interest short term "pay day loans". It used to be a little easier to cash a check at a grocery store and even other retailers with a purchase, but there has been so much check fraud a lot of these places have stopped doing this, or put a very low limit on the "cash back" you can get when cashing a check.

    81. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation - makes it all much clearer. I think it seems like your "checking account" is analogous to what we call a "current account" - i.e. money used day to day complete with debit card/cash. This may or may not come with a chequebook/cheque guarantee but I'm not aware of any that charge a monthly fee. Savings accounts are basically the same thing as current accounts but with a higher interest rate and some compromises (depends on the account - some savings accounts don't have the ability to withdraw cash, some are internet-only, some have a 30 or 60 day withdrawal notice period).

      However, I'm pretty surprised to see you mention "people who cannot get a bank account"; last time I looked I wasn't aware of anyone who's not allowed a bank account. From my POV, it looks like this problem where (poor) people were reamed by dodgy cheque-cashiers was purely due to them not having a bank account, so it looks like a self-fuelling problem where the poorer you are, the more expensive it is to be able to earn money. Strikes me as a bit odd. Even homeless people with no fixed address are able to get a bank account if they go through one of the homeless support groups. Even people, as far as I'm aware, with fraud convictions can't be turned away from a bank application, so essentially it's de rigeur for anyone in employment to have BACS pay straight into their account ("direct deposit" in your parlance I take it?), and I don't see why a credit score makes any difference as to whether you get a bank account or not; here people who the banks don't think can pay back money don't get credit cards or overdrafts to begin with (I was in this situation myself as a student).

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    82. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My buddy would stand in their lobby loudly complaining until they called the cops and asked him to leave or cashed the check they issued.

      He hasn't failed yet. Amazing what companies will do when you are willing to stand there costing them business. He would accuse them of refusing to honor checks drawn on them and he would be right.

      Those kind of fees are just a test. If you pay them you are an idiot. Grow some balls.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    83. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled fees. Plurals do not have apostrophes.

    84. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      So....pay them in cash...?

      Shock. What a simple and sensible solution... This simply cannot be allowed to pass.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    85. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Good luck paying your bills in cash in 2013.

      Simple, deposit that cash into a bank account of your choosing.

      or do what we do in civilised countries that gave up "cheques" decades ago, direct deposit into a bank account of my choosing.

      In Australia if I want to pay a bill in cash, I can take it to any Australia Post office. If the bill provider does not offer the Pay at Post option, I can get a money order made out and sent to the biller at the post office. The money order is pre-paid and backed by the Australian Government, it cant be refused like a personal cheque can. This is how oldies who aren't familiar with those new fangled interents pay their bills.

      or you know, I can pay by direct debit like normal people do.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    86. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they're not intended to be used on an annualized basis. If a loan of $100 is made for 30 days, what is the proper fee to charge? 240% would be $20.

      Ideally, they wouldn't. But a lot of these people aren't in great financial health anyways: http://consumerist.com/2013/04/26/the-average-payday-loan-borrower-spends-more-than-half-the-year-in-debt-to-lender/

      I can understand that these lenders are providing a service that some people apparently need. But it seems like there's something structurally wrong with the whole checking system if it's that prone to check fraud.

    87. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Good luck cashing a check at an issuing bank three states away.

    88. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by tepples · · Score: 1

      How about crash a a friends place for a single month?

      Which requires finding a friend who will allow that and is not herself in the same situation.

    89. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a cash payroll is more vulnerable to theft, either as a whole or from individual payees. The electronic world leaves a paper trail that prevents an employee from saying, eg, "You only gave me $180, not $200" - or a sticky-fingered clerk from pulling that same scenario deliberately. Instead, cash payments can be focused at places which can more easily afford the economies of high security for such transactions (armored cars, multiple cameras from multiple angles observing the entire transaction, audits, etc).

    90. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that.

      Undocumented = illegal alien = fuck off and get the fuck out.

    91. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by KingGypsy · · Score: 1

      Not true. Most modern banks now charge you a fee for cashing their check, if you don't an account with them....

    92. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by QuesarVII · · Score: 1

      No, it's not legal to do that. An issueing bank is REQUIRED to cash their own checks for no fee.

    93. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Seen from US, it looks like banking is working as intended.

    94. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You basically just take complete advantage of people who are very desperate for money and who don't understand how much money you're charging them.

      Sounds like the perfect job for me, where do I sign up?

    95. Re:Perfect is the enemy of good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, why do people still use banks, use a credit union.

      Credit unions usually don't have as many ATM locations and with a few notable exceptions, don't generally reimburse ATMs fees from other institutions either. So if convenient access to cash is important to you, then keeping at least some of your money at a major bank, especially your direct deposit account, can still make sense. Why cash you ask? Well, cash is just about the only way left to preserve some modicum of anonymity in daily transactions for people who still place a non-zero value on their privacy (or what's left of it anyway).

  19. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you certain? My personal experience is that salaried workers in the U.S. usually get paid every two weeks or twice per month.

  20. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get paid every other week, which is extremely common. Some people are paid twice a month (e.g. 1st and 15th or something like that).

    But a lot has to do with the labor laws which require that non-exempt (normally paid by the hour) be paid within a certain period after they have done the work. I'm not sure, but I think that only someone who is exempt (not subject to overtime rules) can be paid monthly.

    There is a very important distinction in the US between non-exempt and exempt workers. Non-exempt workers must be paid overtime (1.5x, usually) for working more than 40 hours in a week, must be paid within a certain time of doing the work, must receive at least an (unpaid) 30 minute meal break no less than 5 hours after starting work.

    Exempt workers must fit one of the "managerial", "professional", "administrative" buckets. If you're exempt, you don't get paid overtime.. in fact, your pay cannot depend on how many hours you work (or you lose the exemption). You also have to meet a lot of requirements (pay must be at least 2x minimum wage, more than 50% of time spent on exempt tasks, etc.) No just printing "manager" on the business card of the guy sweeping the floors and saying "no overtime pay for you".

  21. Well, wait... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ostensibly, this is a means to help folks who don't have a bank account to carry electronic money around. In some cases, it's on the up-and-up; many of these cards charge monthly fees that are lower than what, say, Bank of America will weasel out of you on a monthly basis. I had a NetSpend card for awhile as an experiment of sorts, and it worked out very well... enough to get me to drop my old BoA account for about a year, until I found a credit union that better suited my needs.

    OTOH, many of these cards are shady as hell, and little wonder some employers push them - the kickbacks have got to be extremely tempting, to say the least. Then again, many banks are just as bad, if not worse.

    Long-term, I see it as an overall move towards ditching cash altogether - the poor are the last barrier to such a society, and these card programs are aimed squarely at them. Most are unable to get a bank account (bounced checks, etc), they often get state assistance nowadays in the form of debit cards now. OTOH, cash has a wonderful way of getting paid without the IRS knowing about it, so I can see government's angle in wanting e-money over the regular stuff. Cash also makes it hard for police to track money flow, etc... so yeah, I can see the allure from that viewpoint. I can also see the allure of not having to print and distribute paychecks from the employer's end.

    All that said, I wonder how long it will be until cash is done away with altogether, and what the drawbacks to society will be from doing so. Cash is a beautiful means of buying things without the purchase being tracked (and yes, most times it is not only legit, but done for good reasons), and it has the advantage of being accepted pretty much anywhere (even if you have to convert currency first. Finally and most important, cash doesn't require a transaction fee every time it gets used - way too much room for abuse and corruption there.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Well, wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash is a beautiful means of buying things without the purchase being tracked (and yes, most times it is not only legit, but done for good reasons)....

      The NSA called. They said to tell you that if you had nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any reason to use cash.

    2. Re:Well, wait... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      All that said, I wonder how long it will be until cash is done away with altogether, and what the drawbacks to society will be from doing so.

      Still a few unsolved problems. Buskers, beggers, doorknocking charity collectors, and the guys who wash your windows at traffic lights for a start. Maybe some might say that losing those is not a drawback to society but better for someone who can afford it to throw a few dollars at someone who needs it than have them try and take the money from elsewhere.

  22. There are already lawsuits over this practice by Br00se · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:There are already lawsuits over this practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how the method of payment is somehow an afront to an employee, so much so as to warrant a lawsuit. If she doesn't like how she's paid she's welcome to work somewhere else.

    2. Re:There are already lawsuits over this practice by Br00se · · Score: 1

      There are several key issues with this case.

      One, she made minimum wage, any loss of pay due to unavoidable fees on top of taxes, etc. would reduce her pay below that legal rate.
      Two, the state she worked in has a requirement that “The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."
      Three, there appears be have been no notice given that she would be paid in a non-standard way.

      I hope she wins and this predatory practice ends before it gains too much momentum.

    3. Re:There are already lawsuits over this practice by alen · · Score: 1

      how do you pay your rent with a debit card?
      a check you can deposit into a bank without a fee

    4. Re:There are already lawsuits over this practice by sribe · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the method of payment is somehow an afront to an employee, so much so as to warrant a lawsuit. If she doesn't like how she's paid she's welcome to work somewhere else.

      The law requires that she be paid minimum wage, not "minimum wage less some processing fees to help reduce the employer's cost".

    5. Re:There are already lawsuits over this practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. If it's done right, it's not an evil thing. However, the way we're describing in this discussion IS evil...

      Up-front statement: We paid via debit card for a contract ranch-hand at one point because of logistics- I was out of state and it was kind of difficult to pay in cash or by check (Hint: I'm from Texas...). However, we disclosed it up-front to the laborer and pretty much ate the unavoidable fees (i.e. we factored in the monthly pay and four ATM transactions per month and raised their weekly pay by a bit more than that...) and it was still at his option (We'd have paid by check, it'd just have to be mailed but only off-and on, so there'd be a 3-4 day delay in getting paid on some weeks, so...)- so it was a for-the-win there for both them and us because they had a debit card to easily do gas, etc. and we could pay them appropriately per every week whether we were there or not and precisely at the appointed time.

      This stuff we're discussing here, on the other hand, is pure bullshit and quite in violation with the Law in many, if not most, jurisdictions on that score. I hope the franchisee gets hammered over it the way they're doing things there. If you're going to do it, make it a damned perk and optional, not be a cheap-ass bastard and screw the employee like that.

  23. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by technothrasher · · Score: 1

    > Most salaried workers get paid monthly in the US.

    Really? I thought most state laws establish bi-weekly as the longest period allowed. In all the states I've worked it was that way.

  24. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by LordLucless · · Score: 2

    It's not hard. Really, unless you're saving absolutely nothing, you should have enough of a cushion to be able to spend into that in advance of the paycheck. If you budget properly, the dint in your savings is only short-term.

    I get paid monthly; it goes into my mortgage, and I transfer out a weekly sum for day-to-day needs. I pay my bills straight from the mortgage.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  25. Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I owe my soul to the company store

  26. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    uh.. just live lighter for 4 weeks.

    I think US companies just like to spend more on unnecessary paperwork.

    monthly and directly to bank account is the norm over here.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should try to setup an ironman employment run then. 12 months between paychecks. That should be a better show stopper. Imagine the bragging rights.

  28. survival of the least stupid by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Any company stupid enough to drive people away with such a stupid payroll system definitely deserves to go under after leaving behind only the bottom of the barrel worst employees. Anyone with half a brain left to go work somewhere else.

    1. Re:survival of the least stupid by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      Amen. BTW: here in the EU, such practice would not only be illegal ( it is illegal, under EU law, and therefore under the law of all member states, to NOT pay monthly wages directly into a bank account; also, it is illegal for either employer or payroller to deduce anything from a worker's wages ): people would revolt. The practice mentioned in TFA is sheer exploitation.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re:survival of the least stupid by gutnor · · Score: 1

      You check to get back in sync with current economic realities. The time when you walked out of a job to get another one next door with better condition are over. Especially for low level jobs, but even for qualified job if you are not in a major city.

    3. Re:survival of the least stupid by TimHunter · · Score: 1

      (Not sure if trolling)

      You're assuming that they have a choice. When jobs are hard to find (416,565 people are unemployed here in N.C.) a lot of folks are grateful to have a job at all, much less able to choose between jobs.

    4. Re:survival of the least stupid by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      If that is the case you are doing something wrong. Elect someone to sort it out. Stop giving corporations your cash. Protest. You are not a sheep.

    5. Re:survival of the least stupid by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      No Sir, I troll you not. High unemployment can and should never be used as an excuse to squeeze a few more dollars out of workers already facing hard times and insecurity. That is morally wrong, even if the law - wherever you may happen to live - does not sanction it.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    6. Re:survival of the least stupid by TimHunter · · Score: 1

      I wasn't referring to your post, vik. I was referring to slashmydot's post, which is provocative and judgmental enough to make me think it may be a troll. However, I'm also aware that there are people in the world who are sufficiently ignorant and arrogant to make such a statement seriously. If that's the case, I can't help his arrogance but I can try to make him a bit less ignorant.

    7. Re:survival of the least stupid by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Where are the mod points when you need them ? I had hardly noticed his post. The problem with it, for me, is not in its being judgmental per se: we are all led, some time or another, to emit judgments, even ( some rare times ) blanket judgments; the problem with his post is in sheer negativity, and ( hence ) not contributing anything to the discussion. I have more than once considered leaving slashdot because of the abundance of such posts; yet something of which you may well be a part keeps me back.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    8. Re:survival of the least stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a dodgy old geezer, Dodgy G33za. How about you think up something original instead of a canned response that sounds like something your local congressperson would have an intern mail back to you.

  29. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is being paid monthly a recent change to, what I thought was the standard, bi-weekly? I have been paid 99% of the time bi-weekly (with the occasional job that pays every week), and only recently heard some contractors being paid monthly by their companies.

    Sounds like another way for the bank to hold onto deposits longer to get whatever bit of interest income they can.

  30. Aren't fees usually waived? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work at Walmart, which not so long ago began to require direct deposit. I prefer direct deposit myself, and have always been using it with my local credit union.

    Yes, the debit card that walmart offers has fees attached. BUT If you are an employee AND you have direct deposit to that account, the usage fees are waived.

    I have one of the walmart branded "money cards" even though I've always has my regular checking account with said local credit union. Due to cut work hours hours I donate plasma (to supplement my income) twice a week. The plasma donor pre-paid visa has fees attached, which really sucks. To minimise the fees that I pay I set up a measly $10 per pay check to be direct deposited to the walmart debit card. I then load money from the "plasma" card to the "walmart" (one transaction) which allows me to avoid fees. Normally loading the "walmart" debit card would cost me $3, so it's a total rip off for the general public.

  31. Bank fees by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agree this is heinous, but it's just a symptom of a problem that's beem going on for decades. Why are bank transaction fees acceptable *at all*? Banks used to pay interest for the privilege of using/investing my money while I have it in their bank. I shouldn't have to pay to use what belongs to me, and I don't understand why people put up with it. I personally use baning services that don't charge fees; they exist, why dont more people uae them?

    1. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fees are exploding because the interest rates have been flat for the last couple of years, but banks still have fixed expenses such as payroll and rent. Most fo these no-fee checking require at least $1500 monthly balance. I doubt many poor Americans have that much in the bank right after they get paid, forget about keeping ti for a month! Free* checking will only return when the interest rates go up, and that won't happen until the economy grows, so probably never.

      *It is never free, the bank makes money off the interests on the money in your account.

    2. Re:Bank fees by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      Well, it does actually cost the banks *something* to securely and reliably process transactions, so if they don't charge for that then they are cross-subsidising, which some people object to even more.

      I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account, so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    3. Re:Bank fees by green1 · · Score: 1

      People don't use them because they don't understand money. I have a free bank account. No fees, access to one of the largest ATM networks in the country for free, free cheques (and I mean they print you new ones and mail them to you for free in addition to not charging to use them or accept them) no fees for any normal banking service., and an interest rate that is significantly higher than what most banks offer (which admitedly these days still isn't much) I've talked to people paying monthly fees and asked them why they do, and they tell me "it's only $15/month," (plus various other fees I don't pay) I just can't convince them to save that $180/yr. it boggles the mind. Of course these are the same people that are rich on payday. and broke the rest of the month. The people who think being paid less money more often would make a difference (weekly instead of bi-weekly, or bi-weekly instead of monthly... hint: it's the same amount of money, it doesn't matter how they divide it, learn to manage it!)

    4. Re:Bank fees by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Government set interest near zero. Unclear if banks even need depositors anymore.

    5. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is bullshit. And you are a scumbag. That's not a judgement just a statement of fact.

    6. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you put the money into an interest drawing account, getting paid more often will net you more money. Most businesses only pay you AFTER you have done the work, so getting the money more often means getting it sooner, and that means more interest.

    7. Re:Bank fees by chihowa · · Score: 1

      ...so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...

      If it's any consolation, the end of such subsidy likely wound not decrease the charges levied against that someone. Profiting off of the abuse of the poor has a long tradition and won't be going away any time soon.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:Bank fees by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Well, it does actually cost the banks *something* to securely and reliably process transactions, so if they don't charge for that then they are cross-subsidising, which some people object to even more.

      I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account, so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...

      Rgds

      Damon

      Except, of course, there is no security at all in the US checking system. Anyone can take the bank account number and routing number of any account and forge a fake check. The name on the check does not even need to match the name on the account, banks do not bother verifying that the check is valid before paying it out. The only time they even ask for an ID is if you are at your own bank, if you cash a check at a merchant, there is no security at all.

      So the banks are charging us a fee for... well nothing, they provide no services or security. They do not care about your few thousand dollars, it is peanuts to them.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    9. Re:Bank fees by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ... I just can't convince them to save that $180/yr. it boggles the mind. Of course these are the same people that are rich on payday. and broke the rest of the month.

      If your advice is as terrible as your grammar and sentence structure, they're probably right to ignore you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're living in Happy Nostalgia Land.

      Banks charge fees because it costs them to do these things, and they can't make up the difference elsewhere.

      Banks don't give interest anymore because interest rates have been in the shitter for the better part of two decades. All those cheap loans? Yeah, the banks aren't making much on interest anymore. So how much do they pay out? Again, not much.

      Back in the late 80's, I remember my parents getting a home loan with a "low" 8% rate. Normal rates at the time were more like 12%. So of course their checking account had 3% interest on it.

      Within the last year or so, I refinanced my home loan at 3.375% and even that rate wasn't as low as the rates went just a couple of months later. So of course my checking account gets 0.010% interest. And that's only because I keep a high balance in my other accounts at the same bank. Otherwise, I'd get either nothing (free checking!) or have to pay an annual fee (interest bearing, but they take it back if you don't keep a high total balance).

    11. Re:Bank fees by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The banking industry doesn't work like it used to. In the old days, people saved money in banks and banks loaned that money out to others at a fairly high interest rate. I remember people having mortgages with 17% interest rates. The bank then shared some of that interest with the savers. When I was a kid we got 5.25% annual interest on a savings account.

      Nowadays the fed lends to banks at a really low rate, around 1%, and the banks use that to back the mortgages and such. It's possible right now to get a mortgage of around 3% or less. So, saving money no longer makes any sense as banks can't pay interest. So they make it up in fees.

      Take my bank as an example. They give me 1.5% interest on my checking account, but it's not interest. I have to use my debit card 3 times in a month, use the bill pay, etc. All of these activities generate fees for the bank, and they give me some of those fees back as "interest". Very different scenario.

      It would be difficult to go back to the "old" way of doing things, but would be better for our economy.

    12. Re:Bank fees by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Well, it does actually cost the banks *something* to securely and reliably process transactions, so if they don't charge for that then they are cross-subsidising, which some people object to even more.

      Then they shouldn't be using banks because that's fundamentally what banks are all about--pooling money and loaning most of it out such that the bank can take the interest to earn a profit and pay for all the bank services to lure said people in in the first place to part with their money. That banks have resorted to slamming people, poor or not, with all sorts of fees and penalties, has more to do with banks acting to gain as much profit as they can.

      This is precisely why there are so many bank regulations, so that banks continue to be a useful service and not some sort of predatory organization. So, to an extent you're right that if they stop exploiting you as a greater cash flow, they'll turn to everyone else to shore up their profits, but there is clearly a quick end to that--you can't get blood from a stone. In any case, your argument calls for better/more regulations, not to let the mosquitoes bite you more so they'll leave your kids alone.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    13. Re:Bank fees by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      It's still not free to maintain and run that infrastructure, however crappy it may be.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    14. Re:Bank fees by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Actually, the interest the bank earns on lending very easily covers the cost of servicing your accoubnt and a healthy profit on top. Fees are just icing on the cake.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    15. Re:Bank fees by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      But because the infrastructure is so crappy, they gain more on the interested on the deposits than it costs to provide the service; the extra fees are just gravy and people are forced to bend over and take it. If they provided good security, or got my god damned money that was stolen back, or at least pretended to care about investigating my claim, I would be fine with the fees. (Yes, I am bitter about it.)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    16. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS, the bank can lend out about five to ten times the money you keep in that account, making 5 to 8% on the lending. Throw in a percentage point for bad loans, and I'm pretty sure they make plenty to cover the cost of adminstrating the account (practically zero) and running the few branches they have, and their crappy internet banking portal which would not be of an acceptable standard in any other consumer-facing industry.

      Of course the bank will also periodically loose all the profit it makes (and more) every 10-15 years on the money markets or some equivalent, but that is a separate issue.

    17. Re:Bank fees by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      Simple, it costs the bank money to do these transactions. The issue is that the banks used to just eat the costs and pay less on the back end in terms of interest to the banks customers. However, what has happened (same with the airline industry) is that people notice that banking is a comodity. Whoever provides the best XYZ combination wins my business. I don't care if it is BOA, Key, Fifth Third, etc. Whoever provides the best serivces, rates, and fees package wins my business. As such, people are not loyal to one certain bank, and can easily change banks. So banks have to compete with the best "services" and people are in general stupid. If they get a 0.5% better interest rate over at this bank .. then hell lets open up an account over there. However the hidden fees and what not wipe out that 0.5% quickly and you really got screwed on that deal. As I said, same thing for the airline industry. Seats for $199, but extra fees for e-ticket passes, peanuts, drinks, and luggage that puts the cost of the ticket at $259. They are creating a competitive market pricing strategy through asterisks, offuscation, and disclaimers.

    18. Re:Bank fees by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Most (all?) British banks still charge business accountholders for electronic transfers. Published figures on websites are around 15-50p, depending on the service. No doubt large companies can negotiate a better deal, if they make enough small transfers that it becomes worthwhile.

    19. Re:Bank fees by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account

      In the U.S. the opposite is almost certainly the case. The highest fractional reserve requirement for any bank is 10%, so if you have $1000 on average in the bank then they can loan out $10000. Even at a dismal 1% interest rate thats $100/year they are receiving because you let them use your $1000, but more often than not they are getting 8% or greater interest on the money they lend out.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    20. Re:Bank fees by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Banks make virtually nothing on current accounts - that's why they want to charge the fees, and why there's no interest in real terms on the current accounts. If you put your money into a savings account without easy access they won't charge you fees for using it, and you'll get a real return.

      The difference is due to compliance requirements - since money in a current account is likely to be withdrawn suddenly, banks' internal compliance rules mean that they can only lend out a small amount of it. The possibility of making money by taking deposits into a current account and lending it out or investing it are therefore limited. If you agree not to withdraw it, or put it in an account where withdrawing it is less convenient, they won't charge you the fees because they can make money from your deposit.

    21. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it does actually cost the banks *something* to securely and reliably process transactions, so if they don't charge for that then they are cross-subsidising, which some people object to even more.

      I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account, so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...

      Rgds

      Damon

      So, you're saying you're being subsidized by the stupid and/or ignorant?

      It takes little effort for anyone to sink into debt. It takes considerably more effort for me to find any sympathy whatsoever for those who put themselves there with truly frivolous spending, which is usually the case about 99% of the time. People need to stop buying stupid shit they can't afford in the first place.

      And account "misuse" charges sounds like truly stupid shit like overdraft fees. Again, little sympathy for the fucktard who can't do basic math by the time they reach the age to open a checking account.

    22. Re:Bank fees by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about my personal/retail current account in which I keep a relatively small float.

      But yes, but business accounts certainly attract a charge for every debit and credit and for existing and ...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    23. Re:Bank fees by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      Banks used to need to rent your money, hence interest. You cannot compete against the Fed who has a printing press and literally gives it away. (OK, they are buying bonds and such that aren't likely to be repaid, but..) If you ever made a bad investment, and the government didn't bail you out, why not ?

    24. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess, you are ex-miltary and you have a USAA account. Well good for you Sarge!

    25. Re:Bank fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs the banks money to buy paper for receipts, but they don't charge a receipts fee. The cost of that office supply is part of the cost of the banks' doing business. The transactions they are performing are inherent in their business as well, so it seems to me that those transactions are also part of the banks' doing business, thus another of those costs. If the banks stopped charging those fees and absorbed them like their other inherent costs, would they still be highly profitable? I think yes.

    26. Re:Bank fees by green1 · · Score: 1

      At today's interest rates the extra amount is negligable. The more important lesson is that you need to take the value of your paycheque and spread it out over the time to the next one. looking at your account on payday and deciding you can go out for a night on the town, and then realizing 3 days later you can't afford food is not the fault of the frequency of your paycheque, but the lack of budgeting.

    27. Re:Bank fees by green1 · · Score: 1

      When you can't attack the message, by all means, attack the messenger.

    28. Re:Bank fees by green1 · · Score: 1

      Never been in any millitary, and nowhere in my comment did I say I was American.

    29. Re:Bank fees by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Your "message" seems to be, essentially, that everyone should use the same bank you do, and those who don't are stupid for it.

      Between the pure silliness of the concept and your pathetic grasp of English, I'd say my pointing out your foolishness was well warranted.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re:Bank fees by green1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, my "point" was that everyone should stop paying bank fees, because there are banks that offer this. I used my bank as an example, but I am aware of several banks with similar accounts. And yes, I do think anyone who stays with an account that charges fees after being shown the alternatives is stupid. There is absolultely no reason to do so with so many fee free options available.

      If the concept of saving hundreds of dollars a year on bank fees is "pure silliness" to you, then I don't think there's much hope for you. I surely hope that you never complain about how much money banks make, or how much you pay to them, as it is your choice to pay the fees when there are many alternatives that don't require them.

      As for my grasp of english... I don't see how that affects how much people pay in bank fees.

    31. Re:Bank fees by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Actually, my "point" was that everyone should stop paying bank fees, because there are banks that offer this. I used my bank as an example, but I am aware of several banks with similar accounts.

      Then you should have said that. Inferring intent from an internet post is next to impossible, you know.

      And yes, I do think anyone who stays with an account that charges fees after being shown the alternatives is stupid. There is absolultely no reason to do so with so many fee free options available.

      Which is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

      If the concept of saving hundreds of dollars a year on bank fees is "pure silliness" to you, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

      False equivalence, or reading comprehension issue? Unlike yourself, I very specifically stated what I was referring to when I wrote that: your apparent assertions that anyone who banks where you don't is intellectually inferior. Again, if that's not what you meant then you should have been more clear when you made your original post.

      As for my grasp of english... I don't see how that affects how much people pay in bank fees.

      It doesn't; what it affects is other people's perceptions of you: the occasional typo aside, poor spelling and grammar skills are often indicative of poor education and low intellect. Contrary to how it may appear (which, granted, is a result of your own preconceived notions), I'm actually trying to help you appear more credible.

      FYI, to that end - English is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    32. Re:Bank fees by Justpin · · Score: 1

      Free banking doesn't exist somebody somewhere picks up the tab, the EU is about to put a £20 yearly charge btw. I've seen it from both sides. I was an employer till January. The charges for business banking are pretty obscene, you get charged for EVERYTHING: Putting money into your account. Taking money out Writing cheques. DD making, amending, cancelling Eventually, I canned the account and started paying my suppliers in cash...... they didn't like it because they now had to pay the bank fees for putting cash into their accounts. Plus its an arrestable offence to have more than £1000 cash on you..

  32. and, in california, fees are prohibited for pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So either the employer has to make arrangements to turn the card into cash for free, in a reasonably convenient way, or arrange for no fee usage at local banks. Both are possible.

    In general, it is referred to as the pay received "free and clear" laws, and are a reaction to the "payment in scrip redeemable only at the company store" phenomenon of the early 20th century. ("I owe my soul to the company store")

    For that matter, it's part of Federal Law, as well
    "The Department's regulation at 20 CFR 655.122(p) provides that required wage payments must be received free and clear"

  33. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on the company.

    I have seen yearly, bi-weekly, bi-monthly, weekly. Even daily if you are a 'day worker'. The most common one you will see is bi-weekly.

    The sooner the better you are. Setup a direct deposit that gains interest. You get the interest not your employer. Sure it is a miniscule amount but better than 0...

    It is also a good barometer on the health of a company. If they skip you are only 2 weeks out instead of 4 weeks out...

    This card scheme has not really been tested in court (yet). However, my guess is it will be struck down in many jurisdictions. There are many laws out there about how you can pay your employee. Especially in bigger cities like New York and Chicago. This is mostly a scheme to setup direct deposit for everyone and pass the savings onto the bank and the employer.

    If they really wanted everyone to use direct deposit just offer some sort of bounty on it. Problem is the amount per check is probably so miniscule to not be worth offering it.

  34. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?

    1. Most companies in the US pay every two weeks.
    2. Months aren't all the same length.
    3. With the exception of holidays, you get paid on days when banks are open.

    As for the article, keep in mind that in the US you don't have to accept payment via any mechanism other than cash. However, employers have a certain amount of time to pay you after you've worked, and usually they pay within a couple weeks... but in most places they have at least a month if not longer.

  35. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Eowaennor · · Score: 1

    I think the norm in the US for exempt employees is twice monthly, with non-exempt being paid bi-weekly.

  36. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Once a month isn't too bad if you're salary. It takes a couple of months to get the budget set up but once you do, it's not much worse than biweekly.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  37. No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    McDonald's is NOT being sued. McDonalds has nothing to do with employee payroll processing in individual restaurants. The franchisee pulling this stunt is the business getting sued.

    1. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"

      Or do I say "Would you like to stop at that individually-franchised restaurant-like business that happens to have a McDonald's sign attached to it?"

      Just sayin'.

    2. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      You must work in PR. McDonald's has nothing to do with how people who work in McDonald's fast food outlets are paid??? Can you feel no cognitive dissonance?

    3. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McDonald's is nothing but an association of franchises. When one or more of them acts up it makes the whole organization look bad. So while it's technically true that only that franchisee is getting sued, McDonald's corporate should have immediately stepped in and made new rules about how payment must be handled.

    4. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Legally its a black and white difference.

      Just saying.

    5. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does that matter? When the employee is hired she is not an employee of McDonalds but of that franchise. Just because you as the customer do not see the diconnect does not mean there is none.

    6. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by lpp · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I suspect that part of the reason corporate would not step in to make such rules is to maintain the separation between the corporate entity and the franchisees. The more control corporate is able to exert control over the running of the franchise businesses, the more tightly bound they are to the franchises and the more likely the are to be able to be sued when one or more of them do something corporate disagrees with.

    7. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying the standard of accuracy used for discussing legal cases should be no higher than the standard of accuracy used for discussing where to get dinner?

      And you wonder why the media talks down to you.

    8. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"

      Which is exactly what franchising is all about - leveraging the brand name for marketing. Which absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how a particular business owner handles payroll.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, the only reason they can display a McDonald's sign (legally) is precisely because they paid a franchise fee to McDonald's Corporation. Without it, they'd be violating McDonald's trademark and would not benefit from all the advantages of being associated with that organization. By the same token, it's in the best interest of McDonald's to demand franchises to follow certain standards--with a threat of removing said franchise rights--precisely to avoid the above mentioned GGP's post.

      Trying to split hairs over the point only demotes possible expectations out of any single McDonald's restaurant, which is obviously a bad thing. So, kudos to the parent and GPP. Please keep them modded up. :)

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    10. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what you think, the reality is McDonalds are a franchise outfit and are the world's largest landlord. You stopping to eat highly processed food is down to the conditioning of these franchises using a very limited set of supplies, which give the brand a consistent product.

      Your lack of business understanding doesn't alter anything, the franchise is trying it on. The franchise could be anything, shit fast fast food is irrelevant. The franchise owner in question would do this whatever brand they were renting.

    11. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by samwichse · · Score: 1

      And that advertising means that in the minds of the public, it is MCDONALD'S, not an individual franchisee being sued.

      Most knives have sharp edges and they'll cut anything in front of them in a non-discriminatory fashion :).

      Sam

    12. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go to McDowell's.

    13. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but when you're talking about someone on the supply side, the same does not hold true. If Heinz gets sued for some ketchup shenanigans, do you say that McDonald's is getting sued for bad ketchup because they're Heinz's biggest global customer?

      No. That would be misleading. Restaurant franchises are being sued over this practice. Some of them are McDonald's franchises, but none of it has anything to do with McDonald's, the corporation.

    14. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, but regardless of what you say to your wife, you're stopping at a particular restaurant that's run by a particular franchisee. I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger corporation were forced into setting some policies following this lawsuit, but for the time being, it is indeed that franchisee who is being sued. Think of it this way: if the owner of your local Nissan dealership was up on murder charges, would you say, "Nissan is being accused of murder!!"?

      Sorry, just had to get a car analogy in there.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    15. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Legally they're probably incorporated with a "doing business as" setup as McDonalds. He's probably still correct, quit worry about the small things in life.

    16. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Nope, corporate will still be held liable. They dictate rules of franchise ownership. Since they make the rules, they have the ultimate responsibility if those rules are not being enforced.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Car analogy fail: If I want a Nissan, I don't have to buy it from a Nissan dealer. I can buy one from my neighbor or from Craigslist or Ebay or whatever. There is a clear delineation in the layman's mind between Nissan (the manufacturer) and Nissan (some random dealer).

      McDonald's does not have such a clear distinction: I can't buy aftermarket, OEM-quality parts for a Big Mac. I can't buy box of McDonald's fish fillets from a distributor. And I'm certainly not going to pay money for a used McChicken.

      Nissan, however, will gleefully sell me a brand new engine, all by itself, as long as I'm able to pony up the cash for it. It will be handled just as any other transaction at a Nissan dealer's parts counter for any other special-order item.

      Furthermore, car dealers are very prominent in proclaiming who it is that is responsible for the dealership: There is a big sign by the road that says something like Middletown Nissan, and it is clear that this is a different establishment than Bob's Nissan.

      McDonald's? The signs just say McDonald's. The receipts just say McDonald's. How would a layperson know any different? They've done a very good job of cloaking the fact that their restaurants are operating franchisees, and purposefully instilling consistency amongst them, to such an extent that a common person shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

      So, yeah: In common parlance, it ought to be acceptable to state that McDonald's was sued. If anything, it is simply an error of being imprecise, but I do not think it is any more incorrect than Xerox(tm)'ing a document on a non-Xerox machine, calling a non-Band-Aid-brand adhesive bandage a "Band-Aid," or reaching for a box of Kleenex(tm) -- even if the box says Puffs on it.

      People make words mean the darndest things.

    18. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when you're talking about someone on the supply side, the same does not hold true. If Heinz gets sued for some ketchup shenanigans, do you say that McDonald's is getting sued for bad ketchup because they're Heinz's biggest global customer?

      No. That would be misleading. Restaurant franchises are being sued over this practice. Some of them are McDonald's franchises, but none of it has anything to do with McDonald's, the corporation.

      ..what exactly has something to do with "McDonalds" the corporation then? it has at least that much to do with McDonalds that they aren't instructing their franchisees to follow the law in the matter(or if they are they aren't checking up on it).

      if you got shitty ketchup in McD, would you be suing heinz and not the provider who gave you the ketchup? a salad with shards of glass, go sue the farmer?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    19. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was your point?

    20. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by asylumx · · Score: 1

      ... in the minds of the public

      So why work so hard to try to stop him from trying to change this perception? What good are you doing?

    21. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that McDonald's is not the one being sued.

    22. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by thoth · · Score: 1

      Yeah so the further split hairs corporate McDonald's is a real estate holding company that makes its money off leases from franchisees.
      Oddly, despite having technically nothing to do with anything at an individual restaurant, they actually control everything, from appearance to menu pricing; otherwise you're in violation of the lease.
      So gigantic heaps of bullshit they can't prevent their franchisee from pulling this payroll stunt.

    23. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This lack of critical thought is why corporations get pulled into personal injury lawsuits they have nothing to do with, and end up paying blood money. Look for the deep pockets, then gloss over the disconnect between actors and actions to the jury. Are you really this unconscious in real life?

    24. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by LF11 · · Score: 1

      True, but the franchise allows this sort of behavior in their franchisee establishments.

    25. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally its a black and white difference.

      Just saying.

      Good thing slashdot is not recognized as a court of law

    26. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"

      Which is exactly what franchising is all about - leveraging the brand name for marketing. Which absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how a particular business owner handles payroll.

      But it should have everything to do with how the franchiser, McDonald's, responds to this PR nightmare. Deal with the current clown, set franchise regulations to make sure it doesn't happen again.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    27. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      When I'm in the car and want some cheap, fast, gut-filling goodness, do I say to my wife "Do you want to stop at McDonald's?"

      Or do I say "Would you like to stop at that individually-franchised restaurant-like business that happens to have a McDonald's sign attached to it?"

      Just sayin'.

      I always look at the bottom of the windows by the doors of a restaurant to see if it's a corporate owned store or a Mike and Bob Restaurants LLC DBA McDonald's type of entity. I want to know what type of entity I'm dealing with before I do any sort of business with someone. I almost always refer to a company within it's proper context. "You guys mean the McDonald's owned by the Smith Family? Yeah, I'll tag along."

      If you don't know who you're actually dealing with on a daily basis, it's easy to look really stupid once things go south.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    28. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked into getting a McD's and/or a Taco Bell franchise back in the 90s when I was rolling in tech bubble money. Paying their stupidly high fees to have that branding would have been enough but no, in order to keep that branding THEY get to tell you how you are gonna run your business, who you will buy your supplies from, when you'll be open, and a whole host of other things. Your name may say you own that franchise but McD's corporate runs that place. If you do one little thing they don't like, then they'll yank your franchise license AND keep your money- it's right in the contract you sign. The whole franchising model is a bunch of smoke and mirrors to hide who makes the money, who calls the shots, and who to deflect blame on if shit goes south.

    29. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but if you work at McDonalds, then your paycheck doesn't come from a corporate headquarters, it comes from the local checking account that the local owner set up. This is also why, when you hear a commercial advertizing for a sale, or whatever, you'll hear them say, "...at participating locations..." This is because each location has the option of participating or not.

      If you own a McDonalds, then you are simply selling burgers and stuff under a certain rule-set, and pay a little bit to the advertizing costs. This is also why you never see tv ads for local stores.

      Cheers!

    30. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..what exactly has something to do with "McDonalds" the corporation then?

      Actions by McDonald's. It's not rocket science.

      As a customer, your exposure is different, since you're a customer of the corporation, which has designated the franchise to be its agent. You may well sue McDonald's the corporation, but they will likely respond by saying "go sue the franchisee" depending on the nature of your claim.

      As an employee, your employer is the franchisee. Labor and payroll issues are with the owners of your business--the people who write your paychecks. The building inspector is going to deal with the owner of the property, whether that's the franchisee or a third party--if it's not a corporate store, McDonald's isn't involved in code violations, either. The utility company can't sue McDonald's when the franchisee doesn't pay the power bill.

      it has at least that much to do with McDonalds that they aren't instructing their franchisees to follow the law in the matter(or if they are they aren't checking up on it).

      You're a long way from liability there. There is no inherent legal duty to "instruct franchises to follow the law" or to "check up on it". That's the whole point of the franchise system--you enter into a contract with an unrelated corporate entity to use your branding, vendor relationships, etc. without having to buy property, deal with local authorities, or hire employees.

      if you got shitty ketchup in McD, would you be suing heinz and not the provider who gave you the ketchup?

      Depends on what you're suing about. McDonald's isn't responsible for Heinz's misconduct in most cases, and while you might sue McDonald's, Heinz would be the one who had to answer.

      a salad with shards of glass, go sue the farmer?

      Where did the glass come from?

      The point you're eager to miss is that the story doesn't have anything to do with McDonald's, but with a particular restaurant operator who happened to have at least one McDonald's franchise. That operator may have multiple restaurants under any number of brands, none of which are responsible for his payroll actions and for which there is no obligation for policing. Labor laws and state bodies perform that role.

    31. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by adolf · · Score: 1

      It took a few days, but I checked: There is no such nomenclature on the doors of either of the two McDonald's restaurants in my town.

      They are, therefore, McDonald's. Period. Because that's who they do business as, according to all visible signage. And if I sue one of them, I will be sueing "McDonalds, 2042 Central Ave."

      Srsly.

    32. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Is a restaurant-like business a place that sells food-like products?

    33. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by adolf · · Score: 1

      It may be.

    34. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      "Dude, I'm going down to Mickey D's to pick up a burger. Want me to pick one up for you? Yeah, you can pay me later."

      People buy McD's from third parties all the time. "Analogy fail" fail.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    35. Re:No, it's a franchisee getting sued. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Analogy fail fail, fail: In the transaction you specify, there are just two parties: A party consisting of McDonald's, and a party consisting of both Dude and an unnamed individual.

  38. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    Agreed. I would opt the hell out of those BS cards. I can't believe that this is even a real thing. The first I heard of it was last week.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  39. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by jitterman · · Score: 1

    Not in my case as a US citizen. Four employers, four places where I was paid (and still am in the latest case) bi-weekly via direct deposit.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  40. Well two problems with that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) You can, indeed, get free checking from Credit Unions pretty easy. Some banks too. There really are places that'll do business with you for no money up front and they won't charge you fees so long as you don't do things like overdraw.

    2) They say companies are trying to do this instead of direct deposit. DD costs companies next to nothing. The Automated Clearing House (which is how they all do it) charges $0.35/transaction. This is why companies like to pay people that way. It adds just a trivial cost, and it all automated, the money comes out of their account in to yours. Well the only reason to go prepaid cards instead would be because the bank is bribing them, not because it is cheaper because the ACH cost is just fucking trivial.

    This is not a matter of being nice to poor employees, this is a matter of fucking people over.

    I could certainly understand offering it as an option. Maybe some employees would find it convenient or financially advantageous. But trying to force people on it? That is just trying to screw them over for a very minor benefit. Like I said, ACH is $0.35/transaction (or 0.06% of a minimum wage paycheck, not counting payroll tax and all that jazz if you want to look at it that way) and it is good bookkeeping wise since the transaction hits right away so you know the status of your current accounts.

    1. Re:Well two problems with that by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Some banks too.

      And by "some banks" you mean pretty much every national bank chain?

    2. Re:Well two problems with that by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      DD costs companies next to nothing. The Automated Clearing House (which is how they all do it) charges $0.35/transaction.

      Wells Fargo for instance charges $10/month + $.50/transactions for non deposits into WF accounts. Not a fortune, but for my previous small-business employer of 8 employees with paychecks every other week, that $.35/transaction really was $1+/transaction.

      A couple of other direct deposit providers that I found real quickly:
      Quick Books direct deposit is $1.15/check.
      US Bank is $28 + .35/transaction

    3. Re:Well two problems with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can, indeed, get free checking from Credit Unions pretty easy. Some banks too.

      With legal immigration status, or a work visa, this is true.

      Otherwise, (like a LARGE number of low income workers) this is false.

    4. Re:Well two problems with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These cards are usually as an option for employees who don't want to do direct deposit or don't have an account to deposit into. The companies are no longer required to give employees paper checks, and this is being presented as an alternative.

  41. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who knew there were so many state laws on this:
    http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/payday.htm

  42. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    I've done both. I've been salary and bi-weekly, semi-monthly and monthly. I don't think there really is a "normal" in this regard. It's just whatever the employer feels like doing.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  43. Gamestop did this bullshit over 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for Gamestop and they had this convoluted system where you got an atm card and stack of blank checks to the account. This was their method if you couldn't direct deposit. It was bullshit because there is no bank to go to in order to get your money that you earned with the card. Most ATMs would fee you, effectively a pay cut. The consolation was that you could go to Wawa ATMs because those were free, but because ATMs are limited to $20, you couldn't get to the remainder of your money from 0.01-19.99$. And the "convenience" checks they gave you were ridiculous. You basically hand wrote your own paycheck, had to call the company for an authorization number to put on the check (which didn't look like a real check to begin with) and then you had to get the teller to call in another authorization. There were a few times where I had to get bank managers involved because the tellers would look at the check and tell me it wasn't legitmate and wouldn't go through the effort to try to cash it. On top of that It's even more bullshit because the company doing the payroll here CLEARLY is making interest off of your money, not you.

    This has to die.

  44. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by dead_user · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've mostly seen it used by companies that insist on direct deposit, with employees that refuse to have a bank account for whatever reason. Mostly labor workers, not skilled workers.

  45. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do that yourself. Just put the payments in a separate account that you empty once a year. (At Christmas preferably.)

    The only thing that you need is enough saved up to bring you through the year until you can make withdrawal. The majority of the Slashdot readership should have no problems saving up that amount.

  46. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Why would ANYONE want these cards - that completely contrary to all sorts of desired activities, such as paying your bills, mortgage, and saving.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  47. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 1

    These cards are usually issued to people who work in low-wage, low-skill jobs who may not have the means to acquire a traditional checking account. Many banks require you to keep a minimum balance in order to have a checking account, and we're talking about people who largely live paycheck-to-paycheck and would find it difficult to impossible to keep a few hundred dollars just lying around, untouched.

    Payroll debit cards are seen as an advantage for people in this situation, because they can use it virtually anywhere and don't need a bank account.

    That said, charging a bunch of fees is bullshit.

  48. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by DeciDigi · · Score: 1

    I actually preferred being paid monthly. It was easier to get all of the bills paid in one chunk rather than having to balance them between paychecks (and still have enough to buy food). I also found it much easier to put money away into savings. With 2 checks it seemed easier to allow myself to be nickle and dimed, knowing that there would be another check in a few days.

  49. Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked at one time where I was paid with one of those cards.

    We were paid weekly because we were peon min wage packers.

    It was free to transfer to a bank account. There were no fees if we kept a balance - I moved my money out of the card as soon as the company deposited money into it because I didn't trust them.

    Anyway, I don't have the fee schedule in front of me to make further comments about the particular card I have.

    But the point is, peon min wage jobs pay weekly.

    That was a shitty job. You had to show up over an hour before you could even clock in with the hopes of getting selected to work that day. If you got selected, you were able to go to the head of the line the next day. If you had to take a day off, you lost your spot and back in line.

    If you weren't selected, you just spent you morning -5AM - 6AM waiting around for no pay. A lot of folks got discouraged and never cam e back after a couple of days waiting around and not working.

    The body shop that brought the workers in was ALWAYS recruiting more and turning away more in the mornings - it was retarded.

    They would train people on a machine, and the operator would work for a month or two, and then when business dropped they would not call anyone into work.

    There were many times as a machine operator where if you still needed to work, they would demote you and you were back to min wage loading machines or packing games.

    And when business was slow, no work at all.

    And then after work, you had to stand in line for about a half hour - UNPAID - in order for security to search you to make sure you're not trying to smuggle out a video game.

    So, you would spend at least 90 minutes a day at the plant unpaid.

    Don't like it, you don't have to work there.

    And the treatment by the company! It was clear that you were crap. Nothing. That you could be replaced at ANY time - and it was true. There are so many desperate people WANTING to work - contrary to what the conservative pundits say -that they can replace you at ANY time.

    The poor are treated like garbage in this country. They are treated as subhuman. And when you're constantly treated that way you start to wonder if it's true.

    We, the US, are a class based society - with very little mobility. And if you fall off your rung on the ladder, good luck getting back up it's nearly impossible. Just try saying in an interview - if you actually get one - "when I was out of development work, I worked a min wage job 11 hours a day."

    And the industry still expects you to keep your skills up having to live that way.

    1. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      too bad you do not work in a state that protects workers. here you document your time and turn it in to the labor board. They get fined and forced to pay you 2X your pay for that missing time. they CAN NOT LEGALLY make you clock out to be searched by security.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by SiChemist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm saddened by this story, but not shocked. The fact that I'm not shocked makes me even more sad.

    3. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Petron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen this before... but it's "Undocumented Worker", aka Illegal immigrant work. People lined up hoping to find work for the day, being picked up and paid not by the hour but by the job, which ends up to be less than min-wage in most cases... Pre-Paid cards handed out because it could be obfuscated in the books, and not tracked. This is why I support stronger border security. We are importing a slave class that is paid under the table and abused. We need to bring these people in legally, so they have some legal ground to fight back against unfair practices.

      But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before. The biggest issue I saw in "Movin' on up" was crabs in a bucket. A lot of my old 'poor' friends weren't happy to see me get a better job, better skills, and more income (especially that). I am not seen as a role-model, or even anybody to be looked upon favorably. I am looked at as a sell out. I haven't talked to them in years. Last time I had my old friends over, some of my stuff went missing. I'm sure it was rationalized in their mind, but really... I don't need that.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    4. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by alen · · Score: 1

      sounds like working as an amazon warehouse worker

    5. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of throwing money at closing your border, you could try to get the working conditions checked and the management sued, if they are under a certain level of decency. For instance, absence of a contract of employment seems a good base for calling abusive conditions.

      That is, acknowledging the worker's rights so that they can speak up and say they have some expectations on what a decent work is. Then Americans can compete for the job.

    6. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      being picked up and paid not by the hour but by the job

      This is quite common in some construction work (may be illegal/under the table, but common).

      I know that in drywall for example a lot of local employers pay to hang by the sheet and pay insulation installation by the bag.

      The rationale given is that if you pay by the hour the workers work slower so that they make more money. If you pay per unit then they have an incentive to work more quickly.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just try saying in an interview - if you actually get one - "when I was out of development work, I worked a min wage job 11 hours a day.""

      Why ever say that? Lie. Employers lie about job descriptions all the time. They rarely check to see if all your employment history is factual. Just put down that you work as a consultant, or the company you worked for went belly up. As long as you have a buddy that will cover for you, they'll never know.

    8. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the republican dream.

    9. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before.

      Your anecdote does not trump statistics. Inter-generational income mobility is the standard measure, and in the US roughly 40% of people born to the top or bottom 20% will stay in that bracket. A country with true mobility would have a 20% chance of staying in any 20% bracket, and countries like Denmark and Norway come pretty close to that.

      The US ranks behind France, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark in income mobility. (And those are just countries I have stats for. The UK was the only country worse than the US in the numbers I've seen for developed nations.) The US is less "the land of opportunity" than much of Europe.

      That said, your experience with part of the problem being cultural seems spot on. Not all the barriers in the US are imposed from the outside of people, and there is some rather rank class envy that our inequality has helped foster that turns to excuse-making. Those attitudes do nothing to help people any more than any other form of resentment.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    10. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Petron · · Score: 1

      So 60% raise out of the bottom 20% -- a majority of the people in that 20% leave it...

      The statistic's I've seen shows 80% see their children not only get out of the bottom 20%, but also make about double (average, adjusting for inflation).

      Some videos from economic professors:
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    11. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by tgd · · Score: 1

      I'm saddened by this story, but not shocked. The fact that I'm not shocked makes me even more sad.

      Don't be. If you're not substantially in the 1% -- like multimillionaire, you wouldn't have 90% of the stuff you own if it wasn't for people living like that.

      And that's good living compared to the people who made most of the stuff you own.

      That's the thing -- everyone feels bad for people who live like that, but virtually no one would be willing to give up their lifestyle for it.

    12. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      My wife worked at Supercuts for a short time. They wouldn't give her more than about 15 hours, so she had to quit and get another job. They charged her for "training" and threatened to take her to collections if she didn't pay. What kind of legitimate business charges employees for training?
      Also, if the cash register was short, the employees had to cover the shortage out of their own pocket, immediately. So, the company required immediate payment for cash register shortages, but they only wanted to pay you at the end of the week.
      I don't consider Supercuts to be a legitimate business organization. It is just a scam to feed on it's own employees.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    13. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, try it. They'll find out who filed the report and you'll never work a minimum wage job in the state again. Illegal? Sure. So? It will still happen.

    14. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statistics are obsolete. That was true--two generations ago.

      It is no longer true.

    15. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before. The biggest issue I saw in "Movin' on up" was crabs in a bucket. A lot of my old 'poor' friends weren't happy to see me get a better job, better skills, and more income (especially that). I am not seen as a role-model, or even anybody to be looked upon favorably. I am looked at as a sell out. I haven't talked to them in years. Last time I had my old friends over, some of my stuff went missing. I'm sure it was rationalized in their mind, but really... I don't need that.

      But you just proved his point. In a group of peers, you managed to claw your way out while the rest of them did not. Now you could probably come up with a set of reasons why that might have been the case and perhaps you'd even be right, but look at the demographics of the country. Do you really think the millions of poor in this country are lazy spiteful bastards?

      Look at the demographics. The middle class is shrinking. The lower class is growing. Wages are stagnating or dropping. These are not signs of upward mobility. And to top it off, we have live 24/7 coverage demonizing all those lower class, minimum wage shmucks as being little more than parasites.

      Being poor is a stigma in this country, and it's gotten worse over time. I agree with you that there is a lot of mobility. It's just all downward.

      --
      ~X~
    16. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am always shocked that no-one in the USA seems to actually want to solve the illegal immigrant worker problem.

      TARGET THE EMPLOYERS.

      They are easy to locate and easy to check. The only reason a "shadow" workforce of illegal immigrants exists in America is because there are bastards there to exploit them - for some reason, your country just loves slaves! What a pack of cunts.

      Fuck you America.

    17. Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. by Petron · · Score: 1

      If they are like my poor friends: Yes, they are poor spiteful bastards. Every single one of my old friends could easily follow in my footsteps and get out of their situation. We all had the same hobbies, including computers. That is the path I took. I worked in an Autoshop and when we weren't working on cars, we would be talking about computers, not just games, but moding computers, and even light programing. I quit the Auto-shop and took a tech support job. I earned much more installing RAM into computers than I did installing batteries in cars. I used that extra income to earn a degree in Comp Sci, and I'm now a software engineer. Now I don't consider myself special in anyway to my old friends... In fact I know a few are brighter than I am when it came computer hardware. I could really see one friend go for Computer Engineering or EE. But nope... That would be "selling out".

      And if you look at the demographics, or are wrong. The top income brackets are growing. The bottom income brackets are getting smaller. This is what is being used to 'prove' that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer... but that isn't the case at all. Yes the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well. There are now just fewer people in the lower quintile. The poor today can afford much more luxury items than the poor years back. 20-30 years ago, a poor person rarely had a video game console (for example). Today many of the poor do have one.

      As somebody else stated: about 40% of the people who are in the lowest 20% stay in the lowest 20%. That means that 60% move up. Also, over 80% of children who grew up in the poor (bottom 20%) household moved to a higher income quintile, and have an income (adjusting for inflation) of about double their parents.

      Here are a couple of vids from economic professors:
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  50. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 2

    These cards are usually given to people who are working paycheck-to-paycheck for not much money. Going an extra couple weeks (or even just one week) without getting paid can be the difference between eating and not eating.

    Your setup where you withdraw from your mortgage is a luxury that I would say most people--especially those who are most likely to be offered payroll debit cards--are very unlikely to have access to.

  51. But why not make it an option? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    I can see where these would be a valuable option for the "unbanked." I agree that obtaining a free checking account is simply not possible for many people; if they've bounced checks in the past, many banks will refuse to open a checking account for you, no matter the cost. However, this should never be mandatory, or even a default. Instead, many employers are making it the default choice (and in many cases the ONLY choice.) The default should, of course, be Direct Deposit, which has the lowest total cost and hassle for everybody. These payroll cards foist all the payroll costs on the employee.

    For those that don't have a poor ChexSystems record, locating a bank that will provide free checking if you have Direct Deposit is not difficult.

    Alternatively, physical checks should be able to be cashed, free of charge, at the bank of issue, and should only be issued from a bank with reasonable local branches.

    1. Re:But why not make it an option? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I agree that obtaining a free checking account is simply not possible for many people; if they've bounced checks in the past, many banks will refuse to open a checking account for you, no matter the cost.

      I'm not sure it's just having bounced checks so much as having bounced checks and not paid the money back.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  52. Who's liable for a compromised card? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    So.. if this is anything like a real Debit/Cred card, the same security holes would seem to apply. Holes you wouldn't have with paper check or direct deposit. When my paycheck has been spent and I didn't make the withdrawl, who is going to believe me?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Who's liable for a compromised card? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      When my paycheck has been spent and I didn't make the withdrawl, who is going to believe me?

      When using direct deposit, what if the money never appears in your account?

      Your employer says that they transfered the money, while the bank says they never received it... so who exactly is at fault?

      This is the risk of direct deposit. Sure, you will eventually get it sorted out, but prior to that point you really dont know which institution is at fault so dont know which institution can ultimately solve the problem. The risk of this is low, but non-zero. It all depends what you value the convenience of direct deposit to be, and for me I estimate the value is be just about zero which is why I elect to receive a payroll check instead.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Who's liable for a compromised card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. if this is anything like a real Debit/Cred card, the same security holes would seem to apply. Holes you wouldn't have with paper check or direct deposit. When my paycheck has been spent and I didn't make the withdrawl, who is going to believe me?

      So you're saying someone stole your card? If somebody steals your physical cash, who's going to believe that you didn't spend it yourself?

  53. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    It all depends on how you set it up with your employer. Usually the lower paying jobs pay more often, since the workers are so cash strapped that they simply have no bootstrap to live for 30 days without being paid.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  54. more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leftist pap spewed by Slashtardism

  55. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    uh.. just live lighter for 4 weeks.

    I think US companies just like to spend more on unnecessary paperwork.

    monthly and directly to bank account is the norm over here.

    You know, for as much as I see people from European countries bash on big corporations, you guys sure seem fine with letting them earn interest on your money for an extra 6 months a year.
    The benefits to monthly payroll are purely for the employer- they don't have to spend as much processing payroll since it happens half as often, and they can earn more interest on the money before giving it to you.

  56. nothing new, same old shit is spreading by sribe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It started with some states, getting rid of both checks and direct deposit for unemployment benefits. Yeah, you get your card, and there's some way to get some cash for free, but there's all sorts of limits and restrictions. You either use it to buy stuff so that the merchants end paying the issuing bank, or you get your cash to your checking account in one payment and it costs you.

    As an employer I can attest that payroll services have been pushing this on me hard since at least 2008. They're obviously getting a commission, or they would not be promoting it so aggressively. My default is always direct deposit, but I do pass along the paperwork for the debit card to new hires--this results in a blank uncomprehending stare as they process the idea; "why in the hell would I want to do that???" ;-)

    If the banks could charge us fees for paying in cash, they would. From their point of view this is the next best thing.

    1. Re:nothing new, same old shit is spreading by Skapare · · Score: 1

      And how much does it cost you to write a check for pay?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:nothing new, same old shit is spreading by sribe · · Score: 1

      And how much does it cost you to write a check for pay?

      That's no more relevant to paying my employees than is how much I pay for electricity or liability insurance or any other expense of running the business.

      Now, if you're just curious, it's along the line of $40 baseline + $15 per employee. But that's a full payroll service, calculation & withholding & reporting & remittal of all taxes.

    3. Re:nothing new, same old shit is spreading by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, do they offer you anything in return for using the payroll cards? (a kickback or rate reduction?)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:nothing new, same old shit is spreading by sribe · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, do they offer you anything in return for using the payroll cards? (a kickback or rate reduction?)

      Simply no direct deposit fee. So it would save ~$1 per employee per pay period.

  57. A return to "company scrip"... by swb · · Score: 0

    ....accepted only at the company store. And somehow you can never get ahead because your scrip is barely enough to pay your rent (in company housing) and buy essentials. But fortunately, the company store offers you credit so that next packet of scrip leaves you just enough behind to need a little more credit...

    I honestly don't see how people running a business do this with a straight face, although I suspect its one of those things where someone responsible for payroll is given some ridiculous "cost reduction" goal by an owner and figures either they keep their job by meeting the goal or they get shitcanned.

  58. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    Ah, but you see many employees can't have a bank account. If your history with bounced checks is bad enough, no bank will ever open an account for you. Sad but true. Maybe credit unions are a tad better, but then they require a deposit of usually $25-$35. For people who are in such dire straits that they can't get a checking account open with a mainstream bank, coming up with $25 to be frozen "forever" may be a problem.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  59. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by LordLucless · · Score: 2

    The GP wasn't talking about payroll debit cards; he was talking about the difficulties of a monthly pay-cycle versus weekly/fortnightly.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  60. Why are we even paying employees? by jjohn · · Score: 1

    <sarcasm>
    We lose so much MONEY on payroll that we should FIRED whoever came up with that idea.

    What's wrong with paying in company scrip or gift certificates?
    </saracasm>

    It is certainly true that non-bank check cashing is a blight on poor communities. Debt cards that in-practice have the same fee structure do not help the situation.

    In the case of something like McD's, they should simply issue cash. Yes, the corporation loses out on "playing the float," but that's just found money anyway.

    1. Re:Why are we even paying employees? by anyanka · · Score: 1

      Looks like the US is (like any great empire) fundamentally built on slavery (and war). It may have changed its form to suit the times, but that's what it is. Anything that interferes with free access to cheap slave-like labor becomes a legitimate target for intervention or invasion (cf. Haiti, Venezuela, practically any other country in South America, and many other places in the world).

      The US hasn't gone through the same process of weaning itself off slavery and war, like the European powers were forced to after WW2, when they lost their grip on their colonies. Not that Europe is entirely clean either; with the reliance on cheap products from sweat shops in Asia.

    2. Re:Why are we even paying employees? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Issuing cash has all sorts of problems.

      These cards actually sound like a good idea compared to paper checks for those who don't have bank accounts. All that's needed is fair dealing with respect to the fees. Perhaps a regulation that there needs to be free access to funds near the workplace.

    3. Re:Why are we even paying employees? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Every rich nation on the planet has significant numbers of low paid immigrant workers.

      As far as war goes, I haven't seen any indication that the European nations have put that aside.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

  61. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

    I've never heard of it until this morning when I read it on Slashdot. If an employer tried to pay me with these, I'd laugh in their face.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  62. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    Oh, there's plenty of banks that don't need a minimum balance. The problem is that if you bounce checks, like the poor people often do, eventually no bank will want to open an account for you. Alas, let's not think that only poor people bounce checks. I've seen a big ten university salary check bounce, and that was regular tenured faculty salary check, not grad student "handout".

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  63. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes you need a bootstrap. People in low-wage jobs often run on razor thin budgets. Imagine you have no money and have to get a job and still come to the job dressed and clean. That's a real issue, not something made up.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  64. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's called money management. You don't go and burn it all as soon as you get paid.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  65. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 1

    My point stands just as well whether the cards factor in or not. Many people cannot really afford to go that long without a paycheck--not getting paid for one or two weeks is a huge hardship.

  66. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quite true! Once you find yourself in ChexSystems (I think that's what they're called), you're blacklisted from all traditional banks.

    But then, hardly anybody takes checks anymore, and those that do often process them electronically on the spot, eliminating much of the "benefit" of checks for poor people (namely, "floating" checks a few days before you get paid when you don't have the balance to cover it.)

    I was young and poor once. Juggling checks so I could get by without bouncing any is an art all its own, and a much harder one to accomplish nowadays.

  67. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by click2005 · · Score: 1

    Do the companies who issue these cards also have staff shops eager to accept them?

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  68. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anrego · · Score: 1

    Here in Canada, most jobs seem to pay every 2 weeks.

    At this point in my life it probably wouldn't matter, but coming out of school, not getting a paycheck for a month (or more likely a month + 1 week if they pay in arrears like most places I've worked) would have really sucked.

    Also I've known a lot of people (some actually otherwise intelligent) who wouldn't be able to budget that far. If they got a larger influx of cash, they'd spend it and be screwed by the end of the month.. so I guess it's good for that too.

  69. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I switched to a credit union in 2010 after I got fucked over by S & T Bank. My credit union charged me $10.00 for membership.

    If you're in a bad financial situation, it can be hard to come up with a spare $10.00 but isn't that better than getting charged $4.00 EVERY TIME you want to access your money?

    Yes, being poor sucks. But at some point, you have to start making decisions with an eye towards the long term.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  70. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    This plus a lot of places that offer temp jobs (daily workers) that have a set dollar/per hour for these temp jobs use them around here. The company just gets a batch of them in and issues those at the end of the day, the accounting is done all at once and it's easer to hand them out. Some companies also get half day worth of cards when the person is not working out, if they don't need the worker anymore or as a bonus for doing a better than normal job.

  71. Return to the old Company Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now these cards are gaining ground, banks like them cause it's more income and business like them, because?

    Once there is a sufficient number of people on these "pay cards" (they aren't debit, or credit, they're something else)

    Don't you think the company's using them might try to make deals with retailers? Or retailers making deals with banks?

    Use this store, we'll give you a discount, use that store and we'll have to charge you a "fee"

    unless stopped, you will eventually start seeing the return to the old company store model.

  72. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Next step will be making the cards so they can only be used at certain stores. Welcome to the virtual company town.

  73. Kick backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The employers are getting kick backs. I have no doubt in my mind about it. Think your 401k plan is there to help you? Those are there to help management. I work for a small company and they told us it was nearly impossible to find a plan that did not outright try to take advantage of the rank and file.

  74. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, that $10 (which at most CUs is refundable when you close your account) is better than being charged $4 every time you want access to your money, but a lot of poor people simply don't think that far ahead, and have zero financial management ability whatsoever. I've seen it with people I've hired for domestic duties; they use check-cashing stores for absolutely everything.

  75. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    People who get paid with these cards don't have mortgages, and certainly don't save any money.

  76. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until you're living on the dole as the government is aiming you, then you'll get used to being paid once a month. That's the standard for anyone receiving welfare, old age security, company pensions, etc.

    Drove hack for a while once and the best business day was welfare day. All the welfare recipients would ride in a cab from their homes to the local liquor store to stock up for the month.

  77. Untested legal waters by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how this can be legal

    There is a very good chance that imposing certain fees is illegal, at least in some states. (PA, TX, NJ and more) There is nothing wrong with offering debit cards as an mutually agreed upon option for payment and there are some advantages for both employer and employee in many cases. There are a fair number of caveats however and fees and certain other restrictions seem to be pretty clearly wrong/illegal in many circumstances. There should always be a convenient way to get the entire net amount of the paycheck without any extra fees. There are a lot of unsettled legal questions surrounding the use of these though so I would expect to see additional legislative and legal action in the near future.

    1. Re:Untested legal waters by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I've worked at a few places who paid me like this. You got the card on the first or second day of work, activated it, and your paycheck was there Friday. You got 1-2 "free" cash withdraws per "pay period". One worked on Paypal (Visa) the other didn't (Mastercard). I don't remember which one, but one of them let you go register online and send xfers to other bank accounts that way, as an "e-check". I think you got one of those free as well. After that, it wasn't too much (.50-2.50) to withdraw more cash, I don't remember what extra fee's for bank xfers. A side of this no one has mentioned: ATM fees. Even with one "free" withdraw, good luck finding an ATM that doesn't charge at least $1. Or $2,$2.50, $5... So this way you get hit no matter what. Even with the "unemployment card" (EPIC), it's tied to a specific local bank. Lucky for me during those times there was one 1500 feet from me, so I could get cash there. EPIC didn't charge any fees, except (maybe) a $5 or something replacement card fee. But don't quote me on the numbers, it was several years ago since I used either of them.

  78. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And these cards don't help change that scenario either.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  79. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The benefits to monthly payroll are purely for the employer- they don't have to spend as much processing payroll since it happens half as often, and they can earn more interest on the money before giving it to you.

    By this argument, everyone ought to get paid daily, assuming banks calculate interest daily where you are. At some point, it just becomes absurdly inefficient.

    Paying monthly in arrears is the standard for salaried work here in the UK, and since most household bills are also monthly and the related government tax calculations tend to be monthly, everything lines up just fine.

    And it's not your money they're holding on to, if your contract says you'll be paid monthly in arrears. It's theirs until payday, in black and white. If you don't like that, negotiate yourself a tiny payrise or something to compensate for your lost interest.

    By the way, you're pretty much wrong about the whole interest-earning thing for businesses as well. Here in the UK, businesses earn about 0.1% annual interest rates on money in most bank accounts. The amount they save by deferring salary payments to monthly instead of some more frequent interval is negligible. The saving is in halving the admin overhead (relative to fortnightly payments) and making fewer financial transfers (for which banks will charge a fee).

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  80. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    Dunno. When I was salaried, I was paid twice a month. Now that I've been doing contracts, I've never been paid anything other than weekly. I got used to twice a month, I balanced my bills so half were on the 5th-7th and the others 21st-23rd. I don't live pay check to pay check (never have), and I don't really pay attention other than I expect a message from my bank on Thursday saying they got a deposit. Time cards are faxed in Mondays for the prior week, and the check in is in my bank that same Thursday. I check my balance once a month, around the 5th and see if it's going up or down and change my spending for the month accordingly.

  81. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Please don't take this question as an attack, I do not mean it as such...

    Have you ever offered to give one of those domestic employees a $10.00 loan to open an account at a Credit Union?
    $10.00 interest free, paid back $2.00/month...

    I would suspect not. I would also suspect the reason is that you know they either wouldn't take it or for some other reason it wouldn't work out.

    My point is that at some point, people are responsible for their own decisions and their own positions in life.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  82. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But then, hardly anybody takes checks anymore, and those that do often process them electronically on the spot, eliminating much of the "benefit" of checks for poor people (namely, "floating" checks a few days before you get paid when you don't have the balance to cover it.)

    I remember when they started this....I thought it was a great thing to see checks clear instantly. Then i realized, banks still kept their "hold" on the money. So it was the worst of both words, the check writer has no float time, AND the person cashing it still has to wait that whole float time. Basically, the banks stole the float time for themselves.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  83. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 1

    I don't know. I know people who get these cards who consider them a good thing (as they don't have bank accounts), but they are often not very cognizant of the fees that go with them, or view them as an unavoidable cost.

  84. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by metrix007 · · Score: 0

    no, we get paid semi monthly. As opposed to bi-weekly.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  85. At will states make it redundant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they will just fire you for not accepting the debit card.

    Pay your workers in cash, not cheque, if you can't afford to pay them enough to bank without fees. Companies managed that just fine for a century and only recently stopped, and mostly because of free banking that meant everyone DID have a bank account. Even where it wasn't free absolute, the disposable income was much higher and paying for mere convenience was justifiable.

    But now the disposable income is smaller and the banking costs higher, therefore the convenience is having to be paid out of the necessary costs like food, heating, clothing and travel to work. Choosing to pay for mere convenience is not justifiable any more.

  86. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

    We're presumably not in the kinds of jobs where this would be happening. People being paid through that method may not have the option to take a principled stand by bursting in to laughter before nipping home for a glass of Grey Goose.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  87. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I've been paid monthly, 1/12 of my annual salary regardless of month length.

    Currently I am paid biweekly, hourly actually, as I am currently a contractor, though the rate is my annual salary / 2080.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  88. My wife's company just did this by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    It only impacted people unwilling to get bank accounts they could use for direct deposit. Even people with very bad credit can usually get a passbook savings account, where they are free to draw money without charge. I know .. it happened to me about 20 years ago.

    I think that the number of people this actually impacts is very small. The largest number is simply those that won't get bank accounts so they have control over whether or not to get a prepaid card. Those that can't get accounts are usually those that can't handle their money very well, which is why they can't get bank accounts, and why they have to pay fees on debit cards because they tend to overdraw them so often.

    Yawn .. wake me up when Slashdot has a real story about social injustice instead of people just too ignorant to do what most of us do.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:My wife's company just did this by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      It only impacted people unwilling to get bank accounts they could use for direct deposit. Even people with very bad credit can usually get a passbook savings account, where they are free to draw money without charge. I know .. it happened to me about 20 years ago.

      You may be unaware of some changes in the banking industry. "Excess" transaction charges for savings accounts have become commonplace, and are on par with NSF-fee charges (e.g. make more than N [where N ~= 3] withdrawals from a checking account per month, you get hit with a substantial fee).

    2. Re:My wife's company just did this by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      All they need to make is two withdrawals a month for the amount of their paycheck ..... that's what I did. I paid cash where I could, bought money orders for the bills I couldn't. It was a pain, but two years later was able to open a checking account.

      I had forgotten, but I also get those fees if I transfer out of savings to checking too many times a month. So I do this thing called 'a budget' and plan for it. I would hazard a guess that 90% of the fees can be avoided with some basic planning. I probably only pay an ATM fee once or twice a year, and haven't paid a checking account fee for several years. All by understanding the rules and planning.

      Personally, I get tired of people griping about how bad they have it. If someone can't get a checking account, it's usually their fault. I've always been able to get free checking accounts with direct deposit and even if fees were charged, figured out how to keep them to a minimum. The company found a local credit union for everyone that wanted to open a checking account so they wouldn't have fees, but I don't know how many took advantage of it. There were three people out of a company of 50 that had to use the pre-paid cards for some reason. Another 10 finally stepped into the 21st century and had direct deposit into their existing checking accounts. A couple of them didn't do it previously because they wanted to go to the store, cash their check, put some of it in their pocket, and give the rest to their spouse.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  89. Poe's Law strikes again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul!

  90. Wal-Mart does pay market wages by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    People can choose to work at Wal-Mart or not. To claim they are not paid "market wages" when the employees choose to work there is absurd, by definition they are.

    Bringing a union into the picture would mean the people were paid $0.08 more per hour - with a union fee of $20/month...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The first thing you need to get into your head is: The "Free Market" is a myth. Like a frictionless bearing it is useful only in an elementary theory. You don't get to choose if you have to pay rent and feed children and there are no other employers near you.

    2. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding ding din we have a fucking loser! If there was no food stamps and other assistance programs there would be no walmart employees at their current wages. Fucking period. The point was made and you ignored it you fucking fuck.

    3. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Of course you can choose whether to pay rent. Many people choose the alternative of paying a mortgage. Others live in their parent's basement, or they lower their rent by renting just a room.

      You can also choose whether to have children.

      You can also choose to live in an area with a lot of employers or with only a few employers. It might cost more to live close to employment centers, but if that lets you get rid of an extra car, you would have an extra $9,122 per year that you could pay towards rent or a mortgage.

      There's no such thing as a perfectly free market, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make the market as efficient and equitable as possible.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still move. It only takes a summer to walk 2000 miles. Adds new meaning to the term "walkout".

    5. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      And the first thing you need to get in your head is: The "State" is not the only damn system to take care of the needy. The free market may or may not be better at taking care of the needy, but it sure frees up the rest of us to have a choice in the matter. That's the rub that most statists don't like to hear. They claim people are good, but then they for some odd reason need enforce this goodness.

      You can't have it both ways. You claim taxation is voluntary then prove it. Give people the freedom to choose.

    6. Re:Wal-Mart does pay market wages by tepples · · Score: 1

      It only takes a summer to walk 2000 miles.

      And be arrested for sleeping on the street.

  91. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IBM used to (in the UK at least) pay monthly in advance. So you get your first salary payment when you join, and then the next one a month later after you've worked there a week. If you get terminated or quit, you don't get any more money and might owe them.

    This screws up people who can't budget just as effectively as the opposite. Mostly I think this just reminds us we should learn to budget. My (somewhat posh and full of rich kids, though technically state funded and free at point of access) school used to do classes on stuff like that, but apparently schools for people whose parents don't own a yacht don't cover this stuff. I'm guessing you also don't get classes on how to present yourself in a court of law, write letters to elected representatives or look for a job. It's almost as though people don't WANT you to succeed.

  92. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I suppose that this is a common problem of a typical Slashdotter such as Picass0.

    Now I may not be an engineer but even I know that having a reasonable DC component on the filtering capacitor helps avoiding low voltage when the current input is intermittent. And as long as the average current output is equalized by the current input, what's the problem, exactly? The only difference is that you don't hit insufficient voltage.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  93. Looks like it's being used by big companies by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    Here's a link to a story of a McDonald's employee being forced to get paid off of one of these cards.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mcdonalds-worker-sues-franchise-paying-wages-debit-card/story?id=19420181#.UcKz7Otlt4F

    It's one thing if the employer is offering these as an alternative to a pay check for people that can't get a bank account somewhere. It's an entirely different issue when they are defaulting to these or forcing them on people. Pay employees the traditional way, via check but offer alternatives if needed. The alternatives though should not be saddled with these fees. I received a similar thing as a rebate from Goodyear for some tires I bought. It was a prepaid Visa card. There were a lot of fees for not using it (they charge per month), using it to get cash, going over the limit of what is available on the card, etc. So, I just took it and bought an amazon gift certificate for the full value of the pre-paid card and applied it to my Amazon account. These stupid cards are ridiculous. I can't imagine having to get paid off of one of these.

  94. They tried this where I worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fees were insane. it was double digit dollars per pay check to keep the card going if all you did with it was remove all the cash to put in your bank account. The company told us "either you get direct deposit, or we give you this 'fuck you' debit card". They wouldnt accept my bank information for direct deposit for whatever reason, so I waited them out and they caved and kept mailing me a check(thankfully).

  95. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Do they have a hole in their pocket? If you get twice as much money half as often, will the second half of the money have magically disappeared by the time you're done going through the first one?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  96. They rent out the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You give them your money, they loan 10-20x as much out for 3-5x as high a rate as you get (if you get any at all) and they want paying ON TOP OF THAT???

    If I'm paying them to keep my money, then I want a cut of the interest my money is making for them, accounting for the multiplication factor that fractional reserve lending gives them.

  97. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    No, it's pretty horrific, taking advance of peoples' ignorance like that.

  98. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Short of that, they may just offer "no fee" transactions at certain stores, while charging noticeable ($2-5) fees at any other location. They don't have to ban the cards from specific stores, just give you an incentive to shop at one specific store.

  99. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to be under the delusion that people are rational beings that are not subject to their upbringing. Even you would probably be in the same boat as they if you had their life. Just feel lucky that you had a better life that lead to you being in a superior position.

  100. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    I've been fortunate enough never to be in such circumstances, but I have met people who, in order to save $25 would need to stay hungry for a week. Just for kickers, sign up for a minimum-wage job at Walmart, and see how many days you'll last without eating, doing full time or more, as many people are forced to in order to make ends meet. Yes, over a month or two saving up $25 is doable, but sometimes you don't have that much time, and the need to get paid now means you may squander those $25 on fees etc.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  101. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    Fortnightly payments are pretty much standard in Australia. I lived for years with the monthly cycle in Europe, and I always found it a struggle.

  102. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't the only horrific industry. You will be shocked to learn that the very base of real estate is to take advantage of people's ignorance, then turn around and say "you should have known that".

  103. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With all due respect sir, you don't know what my life and upbringing were like.

    I've been luckier than many. Perhaps in some ways, I've been luckier than most. However, I have faced more than my fair share of hardship.

    These are not perpetual infants that we're talking about. These are people who are presumably adults and are responsible for their own decisions, rational or not.
    At some point, we become responsible for ourselves.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  104. You load sixteen tons, what do you get? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    ...I owe my soul to the company store.

  105. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by JimMcc · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure what bank you deal with, but at my bank funds are available the next business day after I deposit, and the first $100 is available immediately. Maybe that's "float", but not enough that I'm going to squawk.

    One important thing for people to realize is that even if the bank clear the check immediately, as in the instant you present it, it can still bounce. All the electronic clearing does is validate that the account number is real and that the account has sufficient funds to cover the check. The account holder can still claim that the check is a forgery and you are then liable for the amount of the check unless some other resolution is arrived at, e.g. it can be shown that the presenter of the check is lying that it is a forgery.

  106. Bof A, Wells and JP Morgan by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please don't tell me these organizations aren't stocked to the gills, from head to tail with sociopaths. It's long past time we stop spending money to bail them out, undo the damage in other people's lives they've done, and in this case spend time writing new legislation to stop them from doing something they know perfectly well they should not be doing - exploiting the lowest paid workers in society for everything they can , until the Congress gets around to making it illegal.

    It's so outrageous and such an egregious evacuation of all moral responsibility you have to ask yourself is it just a money grab until Congress acts or is it deliberately designed to provoke the legislation-reaction and designed to be used as a bargaining chip, something their political allies in Congress can use to bargain in exchange for some other , less immediately outrageous but more systemically poisonous , "deregulation".

    The whole issue is virtually made-for-Democratiuc moral outrage and gives the Republican something to "trade away", something for the Democrats to parade around as a victory and all the while Wells Fargo, Goddamn Sachs and Bunch of Assholes are gorging themselves in their box seats watching their favorite blood-sport, raping the poor and defenseless.

    Don't doubt for a minute is the META level the 1% thinks at, this is exactly what preoccupies them. When what you personally decide to do or not do results in legislation, then that's something worth considering the implications of. Of course, you and I don't spend time doing that because what we decide to do this morning doesn't result in legislation, but if for some reason it did, it wouldn't be long until you understood that you have the power to create horses for the horse-trading bazaar Congress ultimately is.

    That is, when Congress is working at all.

    I would go further and say that instituting these fees is an example of collusive signalling between banks. One does it and the others see. Each knows internally it's going to be legislatively forbidden soon enough. They recognize in it a Congressional bargaining chip, as do members of both political parties who know how to hit a softball when one is lobbed at them.

    No one has to say anything explicit to anyone. Someone makes a move and everyone else follows on. From a certain, naive perspective, it's market based response, a decision to enter a profitable market on the part of competing players.

    In reality it's an play to influence legislation on another, much more potentially profitable issue . No one can prove anything. There was no collusion to be proved (and we all know what high standards for proof the DoJ has for the coke snorting class ) and no one is coordinating to do anything.

    I don't buy it. This goes well beyond the mere presumed sociopathy of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon and their henchmen. I smell a too-stinky rat. Far far too stinky.

    1. Re:Bof A, Wells and JP Morgan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing that mobile phone providers do. They look at the competitor adding fees, then add those fees themselves. Strangely enough it was in the news in The Netherlands those mobile phone providers actually held a secret meeting to say that is how they should operate together; I thought it would have evolved naturally, I guess CEOs are a bit stupid. There were two ex-CEOs of those companies that blew the whistle on that one.

  107. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, of course not, but for several reasons. 1) You really don't want to get too entangled with people that have that many problems in life; from what I saw, many of them had constant drama of some kind going on in their lives: relatives going to jail, relatives getting maimed in drug deals gone bad, one housekeeper even had a nephew who raped and murdered a small girl. And 2) they wouldn't know what to do with a CU account. These people operate solely on cash; keeping money in a bank is a foreign concept for them.

    Yes, to an extent, people are responsible for themselves and their own decisions, but as a society, it's our (collective) responsibility to educate all our members so that they can function in a modern society, and American society is failing miserably in that regard. These basic life skills like having a bank account and managing money should be taught to kids in grade school and high school, and obviously that's not happening. I had to learn all that stuff on my own, which isn't so hard when you grow up in a middle-class household with a parent who already understands these things (my mom took me to get my own bank account (savings of course) when I was about 10 years old; this was back in the good old days of the 80s when banks didn't charge fees for every little thing), but if your parents don't understand this stuff at all, you're screwed in this society because no one's going to teach you. However, now with even poor people using the internet, maybe things will change because all this stuff can be easily looked up and read about.

  108. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    IBM used to (in the UK at least) pay monthly in advance.

    I don't know when that was, but I did a spell there for IBM in the mid-'80s when the rate was monthly in arrears.

  109. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frenchman here, I can only agree. Furthermore, this interest on liquidity is taxed hard (about a third goes away).

    And if you feel that a monthly pay is detrimental to you, you could probably arrange for a month's worth of pay in recruitment bonus.

  110. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bengie · · Score: 1

    I wish I could do what you're doing, my debts alone consume 50% of my monthly gross income., then subtract taxes, throw in bills like rent, food, gas, and there isn't anything left. Actually, I haven't paid my one student loan in 6 years because i would giving up something like, having a car(taxis are more expensive than owning a car), eating, electricity, my apartment, Internet(use for work), cell phone(required for work).

  111. Virginia Tax refund card difficult to set up by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    I got my VA tax refund on one of the cards. I found the protocol for activating the card to be lengthy and elaborate. Needless to say since I post here such processes are not overly troublesome to me. But the process, which involved numerous hurdles -- including snagging a keyword from a PDF that opened separately -- was tiresome. And I wondered how many people would get so confused that they simply gave up. Especially since State refunds are not always that big. If enough people bailed in frustration the state could make out pretty well I thought. The sum of unclaimed refund money might be interesting to know in light of the headache involved in getting access to one's part of it via one of these PITA debit cards.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Virginia Tax refund card difficult to set up by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Why did you opt to get your refund as a debit card? Why not get it direct deposited?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  112. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're having to go hungry for a week to save $25 there's way deeper issues than banking cards.

  113. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everything is more expensive when you're poor. Not just a saying, entirely true. Can rarely purchase when stuff is on sale, get late fees on everything, interest to pay, higher interest and fees because you pay interest and fees. It's like saying, because you have little money, we're going to charge you more!

    Was poor once.. it sucked. You get sick more often, meaning you get more bills and miss more work because you can't afford good food. I have been clawing my way out of the hole for many years now. Almost 50% of my gross income goes to paying debts, which are mostly medical, school, car, and credit debts from not having enough money to eat so I used my credit card to not starve.

    I've learned to not judge people, they tend to be victims of their own circumstances.

  114. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by jittles · · Score: 1

    But then, hardly anybody takes checks anymore, and those that do often process them electronically on the spot, eliminating much of the "benefit" of checks for poor people (namely, "floating" checks a few days before you get paid when you don't have the balance to cover it.)

    I remember when they started this....I thought it was a great thing to see checks clear instantly. Then i realized, banks still kept their "hold" on the money. So it was the worst of both words, the check writer has no float time, AND the person cashing it still has to wait that whole float time. Basically, the banks stole the float time for themselves.

    Maybe my bank likes me better than your bank likes you, but I get 100% of the money instantly if I go in and deposit with the teller. If i use the ATM, I get 10% of the money immediately (limit $300), or $100 immediately, whichever is greater.

  115. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    The cards and fees sounds more like a RICO charge waiting to happen....

  116. Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But more seriously, it is quite amusing since you know the same people who bash unions would throw a shit fit if they lost their weekends, 40 hour weeks, and other benefits that the average worker now takes for granted that took unions decades to get us.

    I don't think any sensible person would argue that many of the things unions accomplished in years past have been unambiguously good. Furthermore a union can be an important counterweight to management excesses. My father was a union member for many years and it probably kept him employed in the face of some pretty inept management. Unions even can help make companies more productive in some cases. Conceptually I'm actually a supporter of unions.

    The problem is that many unions have ceased trying to fight for what is reasonable. They aren't fighting anymore for a reasonable work week or improved safety or to get benefits in most cases. They often seem to care little about the health and competitiveness of the company. They make the (false) argument that their own actions and demands somehow cannot have a detrimental effect on the company and that the only goal of management is to screw the union members. Once things become reasonable the unions seem unwilling to drop their adversarial position. I have NEVER seen a union go to management and say, "hey, I see that our retirement costs have become a big burden that is hurting the company. How can we help?" No, instead they simply fight tooth and nail for more even when more isn't really possible. Unions quite simply haven't realized that they've won and keep fighting to the long term detriment of everyone.

    If companies tried to change the 40 hour work week then unions likely would enjoy a surge in popularity because then they would be fighting a worthy cause for reasonable working conditions. When work conditions and pay are already are reasonable, unions need to recognize that they need to serve a much more limited purpose. Should management start behaving unreasonably then a union has every right and obligation to take measures to protect the union membership.

    1. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Once things become reasonable the unions seem unwilling to drop their adversarial position

      You managed to summarize everything I hate about unions in a single sentence. Well done.

      I don't have an adversarial relationship with my company. We are working together to accomplish things. I don't need a representative who default takes an adversarial relationship with my company.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Hostess.

    3. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sometimes wonder what would happen if a union was outright given a chunk of stock, or was paid a share of the company's dividends. Would the union management suddenly change their tunes? Or would it simply be business as usual?

    4. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Your problem is you're looking at history with today's rules.

      A 40-hour work week was "not reasonable" when unions were fighting for it.

      Doing something to avoid "1 worker death per $1M spent on a construction project" was "not reasonable".

      Health insurances was "not reasonable" for rank-and-file employees.

      They make the (false) argument that their own actions and demands somehow cannot have a detrimental effect on the company and that the only goal of management is to screw the union members

      Yes, when executives demand worker concessions, and then give themselves millions more in pay, it's the unions that are being unreasonable. Suuuure.

      I have NEVER seen a union go to management and say, "hey, I see that our retirement costs have become a big burden that is hurting the company. How can we help?"

      Because that is a problem that competent management would avoid. We haven't had competent management in the US in decades. Instead, we have companies claiming the retirement plan is too burdensome, so they slash it. Then the executives give themselves another raise with the proceeds.

      You'd think if the costs were so terrible when it was a retirement plan, the costs would still be terrible when it's executive pay....but somehow that isn't the case.

      When work conditions and pay are already are reasonable, unions need to recognize that they need to serve a much more limited purpose. Should management start behaving unreasonably then a union has every right and obligation to take measures to protect the union membership.

      Executive compensation is about 300 times worker compensation. That is not reasonable.

    5. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the bean counters at the company default to options like: Outsourcing, consultants, contractors, cutting pensions, cutting benefits, cutting perks, cutting vacation, and yeah, cutting wages. They seek to maximize efficiency, and cutting the costs of employing people is easy to do. Easier than making better products, or getting more customers, those are other people's departments.

      Corporations default to maximizing profit. That's why (most of them) exist. Paying you, and making you happy, is counter productive to that. Their default position is adversarial to workers. If you happen to have a skillset that can't easily be replaced, or happen to enjoy to boomtimes when cutting costs is less effective than expanding operations, then good for you. For other people, unions help.

    6. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As long as I provide more value for the company than my salary, then there is no problem. And I do.

      I don't mind that companies are there to make profit; that's the primary reason I'm working, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by dk20 · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered the same thing. Another example is when a union shop goes bankrupt why doesn't the union buy them out? Some unions have very large strike funds available to them. Often it seems the union is very critical of management and this would be a good chance for them to run the entire company they way they see fit. Be interesting to see how long until union-management looks at some of the positions and the impact on the bottom line when its their own money on the table. I don't see why they would ever accept being put in such a position.

    8. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conceptually you don't support unions. As but one of many examples, Hostess unions did go to thier management and try to work with them because they DID realize that no company meant no paycheck. You know what happened? The company accepted thier conecessions, filed bankruptcy anyway, and paid themselves bonus checks. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Yet you think we should just keep giving in to every concession the employer makes just so we can keep a job. Well if that job is gonna go away regardless, it doesn't seem fair to anyone but those at the top cashing those bonus checks. There comes a time where you simply must cut your losses and get a new job. That is why I say you don't support them- you expect us to keep taking it up the ass day after day just so we can have a job. I modded you Overrated as well because you evidently don't work in a Union shop. My Union is very hands off when things are fairly balanced. They most certainly don't keep trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip cause they don't have anything else to do. They simply exist- and remind managament from time to time- that "Should management start behaving unreasonably then a union has every right and obligation to take measures to protect the union membership."

      Yours turly,
      Aerospace Metal Trades Council & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers member.

    9. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by c · · Score: 1

      Once things become reasonable the unions seem unwilling to drop their adversarial position.

      Exactly. I'm in a union, and this is one of the biggest annoyances. Every round of contract negotiation is the "toughest yet", every law passed which might possibly affect the union is going for their throats, etc.

      Problem is, if every situation is treated as a major crisis, union members start to tune it out and it becomes nearly impossible to mobilize them when you actually do have a serious labour issue.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    10. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      If companies tried to change the 40 hour work week then unions likely would enjoy a surge in popularity because then they would be fighting a worthy cause for reasonable working conditions.

      If? There are already an awful lot of companies that squeeze more than 40 hour weeks out of people. Non-union fields, though, not surprisingly.

    11. Re:Union's purpose once reasonable goals achieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But more seriously, it is quite amusing since you know the same people who bash unions would throw a shit fit if they lost their weekends, 40 hour weeks, and other benefits that the average worker now takes for granted that took unions decades to get us.

      The problem is that many unions have ceased trying to fight for what is reasonable. They aren't fighting anymore for a reasonable work week or improved safety or to get benefits in most cases. They often seem to care little about the health and competitiveness of the company. They make the (false) argument that their own actions and demands somehow cannot have a detrimental effect on the company and that the only goal of management is to screw the union members. Once things become reasonable the unions seem unwilling to drop their adversarial position. I have NEVER seen a union go to management and say, "hey, I see that our retirement costs have become a big burden that is hurting the company. How can we help?" No, instead they simply fight tooth and nail for more even when more isn't really possible. Unions quite simply haven't realized that they've won and keep fighting to the long term detriment of everyone.

      Thats because the union leaders must prove their usefulness (and large salaries) by being adversarial. If their salaries were paid out of the strike pool the same as the members at the reduced rate than they would be encouraged to negotiate.

      One of the local mass transit unions is on strike because they want 24% raise over the next 5 years but they are already making more money than most people in the area and get 10-12 weeks vacation a year. Many take a few days off each week and then pick up OT shifts. Basically gaming the system.

      So unions have been beneficial in the past but have succumbed to greed and sloth.

  117. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by ottothecow · · Score: 1
    Why not a savings account then? Can't bounce a check if you can't write a check, and you can't overdraft an ATM that knows your current balance.

    Most banks will waive a minimum balance if you have direct deposit...if you are getting these payroll cards, it means you are employed and thus you could also do direct deposit (if your employer would allow it).

    --
    Bottles.
  118. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

    Ah, but you see many employees can't have a bank account. If your history with bounced checks is bad enough, no bank will ever open an account for you. Sad but true.

    Excuse me if I sound like a troll, but checks are what my parents used in the early 1980s. How the hell are these still even present in the US today, let alone a dominant form of exchanging money?

  119. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    It's called money management. You don't go and burn it all as soon as you get paid.

    The current statistic is that 70% of the people in the US do. Wages are flat, taxes continue to increase, and prices are skyrocketing (despite the phoney numbers from BLS).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  120. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?

    *deep, deep sigh of annoyance* Fine, fine: Obviously, it's because Americans are wrongly wrong and even wrongier than wrong in their wrongness, as they do some things differently than some other nation or culture. Here we stand, as a culture of complete wrongisms, being wrong in all ways and wrong in how we live our lives and get paid. Oh. Oh, woe is us for our wrongitude. Why. Why do we have to be so wrong. What a terrible country we are in that we do things differently than your country, which makes us wrong.

  121. Is this legal tender? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Are those cards considered legal tender? If not, how it is acceptable to be paid with it?

    --
    bickerdyke
  122. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Nigerian scam still works on this principle. They send you a check drawn from a foreign or at least out of state bank. You deposit it and the check clears. One business day later all of the funds are available. If you're stupid enough to send them the money, when your bank finally figures out that the check was worthless, they back-charge your account. You end up several thousand dollars negative that you have to repay out of your own pocket.

    Despite the instant clearing, this process can sometimes take 8 weeks to play out.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  123. tracking your spending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bigger picture here is using these pre paid cards lets them sell your spending activities to marketing companies. Everything is 1 degree away from marketing and advertising these days.

  124. 8% unbanked; 22% underbanked in USA by peter303 · · Score: 1

    If you look at number of households mention in article. Underbanked means they usually just have savings acount and not credit card nor checking account. Credit blacklists or high fees are the culprit.

  125. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I do the same. I basically operate on that schedule and have 2 accounts - one has enough to cover all my bills split into 2 paychecks per month with about a $150 "buffer" per month. The remainder of my check goes into a 2nd "spending" account that I use for variable costs (food, gas) and general spending money. All my fixed or nearly fixed bills like mortgage, power, water, internet, car insurance, etc, auto draft out of the first account.

    That $150 buffer plus two "free" checks into the bill account give me about $4,000 or so of "extra" money at the end of the year in my bills account that I can use for something nice like a vacation or such.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  126. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Assume you're some poor sob. You have $0 to your name, you need to pay rent by next week or you get a $20/day late charge on-top of your normal rent, If you don't pay your phone, you get cut off along with a $30 reactivation fee, your electricity will be cut off and all of your food will go bad, meaning you'll have to go out to eat which costs a lot more, your car is almost out of gas and a taxi will cost your $10/day.

    Let me know how the first month goes.

    Being poor is expensive.

    Think the above is crazy talk? I've been faced with this kind of situation, but at least I didn't have to wait 30 days to get paid.

  127. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

    At mine it was $25 and that was your initial deposit. I also have to maintain a minimum monthly average balance of $25 but that value comes from all accounts you have there and has never been a problem.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  128. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by berashith · · Score: 5, Informative

    and the banks have fun with the float time. If they see a check come through for a high amount that can drain the account, it will go through fast. Instead of one bounced check, that big one magically finds its way to the front of the line so that all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.

  129. Time Value of Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. These pay cards just make it so banks can hold on to money longer without having to pay interest. The bank can then invest a portion of the funds and make a profit off of people's paychecks. When employees get paid on a paycard the money is not providing any benefit to the employee until they withdraw or spend it.

    1. Re:Time Value of Money by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      This is true also. places like HomeDepot, who have a lot of money that's "doing nothing" overnight literally invest it for the 8 hours they're not open, then take it back again, with profit. A small amount of money from a lot of people sitting in your account for even a short time can turn quite a tidy profit- a profit they make because they are able to reliably gate, through the device of manipulating the user interface people have to use to get their money out, just how many people take out their money.

      The poor have no representation in our government. None.

    2. Re:Time Value of Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's generally what happens with the poor. There's usually a reason they are poor, and a surprising amount of the time, it isn't because The Man is keeping them down.

      It's usually because the poor are usually too busy to know what they need, other than food and clothing, and the ones who have the time to think about it are those sitting on their asses voting for people to continue their benefits.

      I don't even know what a government would look like if the poor actually ran it. They've tried that periodically in the past after revolutions and such. It generally ends up with the rich in charge again after everyone gets sick of the free for all of "worker's paradises".

      The problem with the poor is that they are usually not educated enough to understand what they need to, and too busy to change that if they cared to.

  130. government using lots of bank cards too by peter303 · · Score: 1

    For welfare payments and general benefit payments like SS. For the same reasons: many of these people are unbanked. And its a lot more efficient than mailing paper checks. Some kind of government cards may used anywhere. Others are restricted to pre-approved supermarkets and doctor offices, etc.

    I dont think the government cards have onerous fees on the distribution end. But a recipient might be hit my ATM withdrawal fees.

  131. Foreign workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems to smack of undocumented workers having a mechanism to be paid and alleviate the honus on the employer.

    I believe it also opens up the company to serious fraud potential.
    I can see hackers using this as an attacker vector to disrupt a business directly by impacting capital on hand. Even I the bank is the one to eat it, I imagine a company not being able to cover bills for a month or two while it gets sorted out would be catastrophic.

  132. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right... this is the whole strong helping the weak philosophy at play here. My only statement is that the weak need to remember it's a choice for the strong to help them, not a right.

    What you'll find though is pride gets in the way, when I was younger I did try to help people I didn't really know that well only to get "who is this guy and why does he thing he knows better" type attitudes / responses.

    So... as a result, call me a terrible person, but I leave people to their own problems now no matter how basic, I have my own to deal with.

    And when I read something like TFA, I immediately flag atm fees and know that I would mitigate them (my bank has free atm withdrawals at their atms), but passing that knowledge on? Words to the wind.

  133. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

    If you don't have a bank account... doesn't cashing a check cost money too?

  134. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by ottothecow · · Score: 1
    Low-wage workers without standard schedules/payment amounts often benefit from shorter pay periods.

    If you are a waiter and all of the sudden need some cash to fix your car, its a lot better if you can pick up an extra shift or two and not have to wait a month for the paycheck (especially since you can't walk out with a pocket full of credit card tips like you could when everybody used cash). Same goes for people who get paid overtime...put in some extra hours and see the money right away.

    I would agree that if you are an exempt salaried worker, payment frequency shouldn't matter that much. You are only going to earn $X in a month and earning it once, twice, or four times a month shouldn't have a significant impact. Monthly is easy with bill cycles (get paycheck, pay bills, spend/save rest), but months are not all the same length so you either have to get paid slightly less in February or the company has to do a 1/12 split--but then hourly workers still need to be paid by hours worked so each month will vary. Bi-weekly and weekly at least guarantee that all pay periods are the same length and that you always know what day is pay-day. I worked somewhere for a while that had Twice-Monthly paychecks and thought it was kind of weird--was never clear which day was pay day since they wouldn't cut checks on weekend (or mondays IIRC). Pay periods were always different lengths and started/ended on different days of the week so as a part-time hourly worker, my checks would have huge variance.

    --
    Bottles.
  135. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by SuperHighImpact · · Score: 2

    They charged you to be a member? Neither credit union I've joined had membership fees. Generally, maintaining membership involved keeping a low balance of around $25 in my savings account with them. The two credit unions I joined were:

    Kirtland Federal Credit Union (military only)
    San Diego County Credit Union

    --
    sHi
  136. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by BrokenSoldier · · Score: 1

    This was never presented to me as an option. How, if you don't mind my asking, did you set it up? CAS

    --
    If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
  137. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    These basic life skills like having a bank account and managing money should be taught to kids in grade school and high school, and obviously that's not happening.

    They were teaching that stuff in my grade schools back in 1981, and it was a working class are public school. I was under the impression that they pretty much all include some basic "personal finance" in the required curriculum these days.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  138. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes. As a member of the Board of Directors for an HOA, I see it all the time. Before a house in an HOA is sold, there is an inspection for violations. The results go into the package that all new homeowners get and should be presented to the new or prospective homeowners before signing. The reason for that is because the new owner becomes responsible for all violations, so the inspection is there for disclosure and as a point where the new homeowner can make sure that either the old homeowner fixes them, or the price is adjusted to deal with the extra hassle.

    Many new homeowners indicate that their packages do not include the inspection report when the deadline to fix their house passes. Of course, many of them are lying about that, or simply didn't read that material. Still, in many cases, we believe that the real estate agent is either not very good at what they do, or they are purposely leaving that document out so that nothing complicates the sale. We know this because the management company has on record when a copy of the inspection has been requested and delivered. So, we know that the material has been delivered from us to the buyer's agent.

    Whatever the cause, this leaves the new homeowners on the hook for potentially thousands of dollars in repairs, and there is often a deadline to get those repairs completed. As you would expect, this leads to a great deal of drama.

    Word to the wise, real estate agents need to be carefully monitored, and you need to make sure you are getting all your paperwork and READING all your paperwork. They are looking to get you into a house, or to sell at all costs (depending on who they represent), and a lot of them are either bad at representing you properly, or they are alternately quite willing to screw you over to get you into a house and get their commission as fast as possible.

  139. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by qwijibo · · Score: 1

    Replying to undo errant mod.

    Anyone know of cases where this happens?

  140. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everywhere I've worked in the US, salaried folks have been paid monthly, and hourly folks weekly. I'm not sure there is a "normal".

  141. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by shentino · · Score: 1

    In some cases you can't opt out. RTFS.

  142. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I only know one person in my circle of acquaintances (the vast majority of which are salaried) that gets paid monthly. Almost all are salaried workers are paid bi-weekly with the hourly workers being split about half-way between bi-weekly and weekly.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  143. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Weekly? Bi-weekly seems to be the most common in the US.

    I've been thin for cash during that second week enough times, I can only imagine how much worse it would be to go a whole month.

    If that's the case you are managing your money badly. Unless you are being paid pennies you should not be living hand to mouth.

    Audit your spending for a month and see what's going on, it's a really educational experience.

  144. For people with a bank account... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Couldn't people just go to their bank, and take out all the money from their payroll card in one transaction and then immediately it all into their bank account?

    1. Re:For people with a bank account... by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      FOR PEOPLE WITH A BANK ACCOUNT...many of these folks don't..they don't have any minimum balance-in the old days a store or the bank the company uses would cash the checks for 100 cents on the dollar. Today, you can't get a bank to cash a check drawn on that bank without another account for the bank to draw on if it bounces. This is a no-go for lots of folks. Making someone pay a fee to get paid is unconscionable even for a industry that gets free money from the Fed and lends it to you at 18%.

    2. Re:For people with a bank account... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Not all kinds of accounts have a minimum balance requirement. Also, chequing accounts are not the only type of bank account. There is no reason that people with even a terrible credit rating cannot get a basic chequeless account which they can freely deposit to and withdraw from.

      As for making somebody pay a fee to get paid, they'd have to do that anyways at any cheque cashing institution anyways, which is where they'd have to go without a bank account.

      Or are you proposing that employees should always be paid in cash?

    3. Re:For people with a bank account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I don't know what that guy proposes but let me clarify a couple things. You appear to be from Canukistan cause your email says it and you spell it chequing. Here in Merica, we only get 2 kinds of accounts for the regular person (businesses have more options)- savings and checking. If you have shitty money managment skills, or bounced a (imperial) shitload of checks, then there are very few banks that will give you any kind of account. Some states require banks to provide a free account for anyone but this is not Federally mandated. If you live in a conservative state, you are most likely fucked. I will propose it: The employee should dicate the terms in which he will be paid as long as it is reasonable, ie what is common for the day. Cash is still common for this day, as are direct deposit, checks, debit cards, paypal, and a bunch of other stuff. It shouldn't matter to the employer how thier employees want to get paid, if they aren't sitting on sufficent funds in thier own accounts, you better be looking for a new job!

    4. Re:For people with a bank account... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Google "checkless account". They exist, even in the USA... and are becoming increasingly popular as the popularity of actually writing cheques diminishes.

  145. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by shentino · · Score: 2

    Being able to choose how gently you get screwed is hardly a choice.

  146. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it isn't like the information isn't available. Its not like someone hasn't sat down with them and tried to educate them.

    They just don't listen. They don't want to learn.

  147. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't your work place pay for your internet or cell phone? If they don't, you should be able to write it off on your taxes as a business expense, I believe.

    I do know places that won't pay for your phone and internet, but everywhere I have ever worked, they give you their phone or some shitty internet option of their own to compensate.

  148. Repeating the Past by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

    It's like the Company Store raped some sharecroppers, and this is their unruly bastard child...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  149. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by countach74 · · Score: 1

    What you say implies that one has no choice in their decisions. It's far from possible to be brought up in poverty and work/reason one's way out of it. Suggesting anything otherwise is downright insulting to the poor.

  150. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Your employer may also not offer healthcare and pay the fine (it's cheaper for them) and stick you with Obamacare. That's if they don't already make you a "contractor" and shift all the liability to your ass too. All the risk, none of the reward. That's the future of corporate america for the majority of Americans.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  151. Bank cost structure by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying fees are a good thing. They are quite excessive in many cases and sometimes border on criminal in my opinion. But it's worthwhile to look at things from the bank's perspective.

    I agree this is heinous, but it's just a symptom of a problem that's beem going on for decades. Why are bank transaction fees acceptable *at all*?

    Because the act of providing that transaction is not free. It almost certainly doesn't cost the bank what the bank actually charges (banks make a lot of profit from fees) but there is a real and significant cost to each and every transaction. The fees are at attempt to recover these costs and of course to make a profit as well. There is a cost to servicing your banking needs and it isn't unreasonable for the bank to have some means to recover that cost and yes, make a profit as well.

    Banks used to pay interest for the privilege of using/investing my money while I have it in their bank.

    And they still do for many types of accounts. However unless you have a rather substantial amount of money stored at the bank it is actually possible that the cost of servicing your account is higher than the investment income that can be earned from that money. These numbers are made up but illustrative of my point. Let's say you are depositing of $1. That deposit might cost the bank $0.25 to process. Let's say that your neighbor deposits $1000. Processing of the transaction is identical so it still only costs the bank $0.25 to process. The cost is the same to the bank but the profit is wildly different. That is why banks insist on maintaining a larger balance if you want higher interest payments. It also means that not all customers and all transactions are equally profitable to the bank. If you withdraw money from an ATM not owned by your bank, there is a cost to that outside bank but no income to offset the cost. So the impose a fee. Not usually a reasonably fee ($3? Seriously?!?) but in principle they are simply recovering their costs.

    As for investing the money you deposited, remember that how much profit the bank can make depends on how much you deposit with them. Having a bunch of accounts with small balances is much less profitable than having a few accounts with bigger balances even if the total amount deposited is the same. Also bear in mind that when interest rates are as low as they are right now, the investment income a bank can make on your money is somewhat limited.

    I personally use baning services that don't charge fees; they exist, why dont more people uae them?

    I do most of my banking through one of the largest banks in the US. I don't pay ATM fees, debit card fees, account maintenance fees, overdraft fees or frankly much in the way of fees at all. It's not really terribly hard to avoid most if not all fees. If they start charging fees I consider unreasonable I'm more than willing to take my business elsewhere.

  152. Sixteen tons by sjames · · Score: 1

    Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can''t go. I owe my soul to the company store.

  153. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 2

    Normally, if you take a check to the bank that issued it, they will cash it at no charge. Banks that charge for this are scumbags.

  154. you people are such ID10Ts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you nerds stop deviating from the subject. What you guys do not seem to get is the legality of this. I mean you get your wages and you have to pay for getting them. Lets say they get one free pass of taking your cash out. But what about the inactivity fee? How about paying rent? No one takes cash, so there goes a fee for a money order. How about if you have multiple bills? Just pay the fees? This is a transaction based card, so there is a fee for everything. Most I see have option to be used to get cash back for free to twart the ATM fee, but how about if you get a check from someone? Most do not work like a checking account. Cant deposit it. Take it to the issuing bank? Most have fees to cash their own check. Please inform yourself before you post. They can not be used as real ATM/credit cards. Try to rent a car with them, or book a hotel reservation or flight.

    1. Re:you people are such ID10Ts by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Can you manage to have an intelligent conversation without deviating from the subject with an ad-hominem?

      In actuality, the one we have in hand (we have it for differing reasons than this BS...) works PRECISELY like a regular ATM/Debit card- and has a checking account with ABA/Account number associated with the account and is accessable by the bank in question. It depends on the issuing bank, etc. as to what all of what you're talking to is in effect. We know this because it's been used for a debit transaction booking a hotel, booking a rental vehicle, paying for fuel, getting money orders, etc. Again, it REALLY depends on which bank is actually backing the card (and there IS one there...).

      Please inform yourself about all of it much better than you did here before you post...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  155. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is The United States of America. How dare you expect anyone in this nanny-state to be responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. If you make good decisions and manage to claw your way up to the upper echelons of society, you need to pay your fair share. And if by some chance you are aren't one of the lucky few, then by god, the Federal govt will take care of you. Because bad decisions are never based on your decision making shares, but it must be someone elses fault.

  156. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gorzek · · Score: 1

    I'm not aware of any, and it may not be something that is done except in some very fringe cases. I'd certainly want to see more evidence that this is a thing that happens, I'm just saying it's not totally outlandish that it could be done.

  157. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've long felt that schools have been doing a disservice to pupils since the 70's; preparing grade school kids for life should include basic money management, awareness of the state and federal tax code, family law, and the penal code. It takes an education to understand the responsibilities society places on you and the consequences of ignoring them, yet we toss our kids to the wolves as soon as they complete primary without any of that. Its really rather silly.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  158. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by deKernel · · Score: 1

    Actually most schools these days do try and teach this information, but the problem is that the kids aren't there in school to learn the material. Their parents aren't doing their job as they should. The system might be flawed, but the root of just about all the issues is that the parents aren't doing their job and teaching kids to do the right thing.

  159. My former employer did this for expenses by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    and there was only one place in the whole city where we could take the card to deduct the cash without taking a transaction fee hit. it's a dick move, folks, from employers who are shitheads.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  160. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by shentino · · Score: 1

    Ostensibly that would be an illegal tying arrangement.

    In practice, the corporate elite have such a deathgrip on the government this cushy arrangement is probably going to be given a blind eye.

  161. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by countach74 · · Score: 1

    Follow up:
    Being poor does suck. What's worse than just being poor is that many things are more expensive to the poor due to basic economic principles: poor neighborhoods have higher crime, increasing cost of doing business in poor neighborhoods, increasing prices for said business, etc. On the other hand, coming from a middle income family most certainly doesn't not mean that you automatically know how to handle money. Most of my friends growing up did not handle money well and they came from similar upbringings as my own. On the other hand, my parents are awful with money (though not as awful as using check cashing stores), yet I do far better with it.

  162. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't recall anyone sitting down with me and explaining taxes, the penal code, family law (with regard to chihldren out of wedlock), and how to manage my checkbook. Other than only cursory explanations from my parents and some half-assed sex ed in school I had to figure out on my own what the implecations are of handling any of that stuff incorrectly.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  163. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mark-t · · Score: 1

    For small numbers of "many", perhaps.... while the nationwide number of people with bad credit may not be a tiny number, it's not anywhere near a majority. Besides... you'd be talking about people who've committed enough cheque fraud to actually have a criminal record, and maybe even served time.

    Also, every bank that I know of has a "chequeless" type of account... which often even has lower fees (and sometimes even better interest) associated with it. Even people with extremely piss porr credit should be able to get such an account.

  164. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on the job. Most salaried workers get paid monthly in the US.

    I haven't known any salary employee who gets paid monthly since the 1980's... I don't think you can say "most", sure some still do but definitely not most.

  165. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by lgw · · Score: 1

    Careful of your assumptions. Several of us Slashdotters have had messed-up upbringings and managed to figure it out eventually. Upbringing is a fine excuse for making stupid financial mistakes at 20, but it's no excuse at 30.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  166. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Because he's definitely not an illegal alien, subject to likely being paid daily before they are dropped back off at the 7-11, and he's probably not an H1-B, where they pay your contracting company your fee, and the contracting company pays you peanuts whenever they feel like it because they have you over a barrel until you've got a Green Card.

  167. I wonder if the CEO gets paid in prepaid cards by jehan60188 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the CEO gets paid in prepaid cards
    Or is that inconvenience reserved only for the wage-slaves?

  168. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

    All else being equal, the shorter the time period between checks, the better. Because money in-hand is better than money promised, since you can always make more money on money that you actually have.

    The problem is, all else is NOT equal.

  169. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    Next step will be making the cards so they can only be used at certain stores. Welcome to the virtual company town.

    That was the way workers used to get paid, with factory credit that could only be used at the official factory shop. Of course this shop was overpriced.

    I'm thought there was some law about being paid in local currency now? Because if you are paid by card that comes with fees to get the cash you are not really being paid in local currency.

  170. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

    I started with the thought that declaring an ultimatium to the employeer to pay cash which is legal tender and compulsory for any transaction else use a direct credit was a good idea until I found your own currency isn't legal tender.

    Until America accepts it's own currency in any transaction (within it's own borders) then corporations can issue their own cards, bills, or currency for which you'll continue to pay the rate set by the issuer (which is a horrible, terrible idea). Make your own currency legal tender would give you the tools to solve this problem.

    --
    Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
  171. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Didn't the article mention something about employers were refusing to pay the employees by check or direct deposit? Seems to me that it'd apply even if one did have a mortgage.

  172. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. But my company pays monthly.

  173. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Why do you need a checking account? Wouldn't a savings account be adequate?

  174. One possible reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A company I used to work for paid a lot of independent contractors on a monthly basis (sales commissions). We looked into paying them via these types of pre-loaded cards...

    Consider... a pre-paid card company we had worked with previously to pay commissions to individuals OUTSIDE the U.S. ceased their international operations. A lot of our payees had an outstanding balance on their cards that had NEVER been used. So the card company transferred the outstanding balance on all cards back to us - so we could make another effort to get our payees their money. Some people never even used their card at all... some people used almost everything on the cards except for a few cents... It ended up totaling several hundred thousand dollars... nearly half a million as I recall. It was a HUGE amount of money, just sitting there doing nobody any good.... except for the bank!!!

    (And that's the BIG secret that nobody - except the bank - realizes: SOME of these cards NEVER get used - a few are all used up - EXCEPT for a few cents and never used again. It adds up over time... big time. And that money is not sitting in some vault - the bank is USING it!... same thing goes for those gift cards. I've got several sitting in a drawer at home with a few cents leftover that I'll likely never use. You probably do too.)

    So... I told the pre-paid card companies that we would consider using their service to pay our domestic contractors - IF - they would give us a piece of the action, either in interest on the total amount we transferred into the bucket OR if we actually had control of the big pool of money from where the cards we issued to people drew their funds (because at any given time only X% of the money loaded onto the cards would ever be used). I think we finally found a company that would do just that... or something to that effect, but decided not to at the time due to other business concerns....

    But can ya see the advantage of this? :-)

  175. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Fortnightly payments are pretty much standard in Australia. I lived for years with the monthly cycle in Europe, and I always found it a struggle.

    I've lived with monthly payments all my life. I've not found it a struggle since I started being a bit careful with my money.

    My bills are all monthly so it works out nicely. Are your bills weekly?

  176. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The union at Hostess retaliated against management because they were diverting money away from the employee pension fund.

  177. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    If you don't mind me asking how did you run up debts that take away 50% of your income?

  178. Is that the bottom, nope by kbsoftware · · Score: 1

    Just when you think evil banks and companies have reached the bottom of the scum nope they pull out shovels and start digging even deeper. The U.S. and many other countries are in need of some serious major changes right across the board.

  179. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

    Do you not understand the concept of spending all the money you have, because you don't think ahead? Not understanding that some people think this way, despite the concept being repeated again and again, is almost as stupid as the mentality itself. Please accept that some people have trouble with this.

  180. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

    It depends on the shop. I've worked many places that paid weekly. Some shops paid me bi-weekly or on the 15th and the 30th.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  181. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming it's all electronic, the inefficiencies are negligible. If you're still getting a physical check, join the 21st century.

  182. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

    My point is that at some point, people are responsible for their own decisions and their own positions in life.

    Let 'em burn, eh?

    No penny for the guy, eh?

    I hope you find your Ayn Randian paradise soon (but make sure it is far, far away, please!)

    Man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men. — Mahatma Gandhi

    --
    Yeah, right.
  183. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find vegetables and fruit from the local market cost less than just about any other kind of food. They definitely count as good food.

    If I'm trying to save money I'll buy whatever is in season and going cheap and look up recipes on supercook.com where you can search by ingredient.

    Cooking isn't a dead art yet :)

  184. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that they pretty much all include some basic "personal finance" in the required curriculum these days.

    That skill was taught in the class known as "Home Economics," which was one of the first ones cut after the 'Reagan Revolution', along with Art, Music and PE.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  185. I'm paid like this and there are no fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, I'm not in the USA.

  186. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've long felt that schools have been doing a disservice to pupils since the 70's; preparing grade school kids for life should include basic money management, awareness of the state and federal tax code, family law, and the penal code. It takes an education to understand the responsibilities society places on you and the consequences of ignoring them, yet we toss our kids to the wolves as soon as they complete primary without any of that. Its really rather silly.

    If you got rid of Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, History, Science, P.E., and Recess we might be able to cover the U.S. tax code in K-12, although it would be woefully outdated knowledge by the time they got to college. If we started sending every kid to summer school it would make a dent in the rest of the Federal statutes. States would have to do their own statutes as extra homework and weekend sessions. I have no idea when country/city ordinances would be covered. Good idea, though.

  187. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    And why can't they transfer the salary to the bank account of the employee????

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  188. I've written all of my congress critters by bferrell · · Score: 1

    If you have such, I would urge you to do the same. This is outrageous and should be banned under US labor law.... I harkens back to the "company store"

    Want your money, pay me to get it.

    Gack!

  189. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    This isn't the only horrific industry. You will be shocked to learn that the very base of real estate is to take advantage of people's ignorance, then turn around and say "you should have known that".

    I thought that was investment banking!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  190. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by jkflying · · Score: 1

    No, but you typically only get paid *after* you work. So, at first at least, it means going twice as long without any income.

    --
    Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
  191. Groundworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for capitol controls, go look it up nerds.

  192. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I work in the prepaid industry.

    Yah, I have a credit union with DD.
    TBH, prepaid seemed pretty sleazy to me my first few years working here.

    Anytime you want to gripe about prepaid debit go park in front of a check cashing store for a while.
    If you have trouble finding one, they are usually between your liqueur store and a pawn shop.

    Prepaid is a step up from that, an it's hard for many people to accept.

    I know company payroll cards are issued to people more fortunate and they feel slighted, but nothing is free, handling cash is not free, writing checks is not free, setting up DD for employees not likely to stick around more than a year is not free. Payroll cards are a good deal for employers, I'm sorry some costs shifted to the employees, but you can always ask for DD anyway and debit cards keep a lot of people away from the pawn shop, liqueur store strip malls, they do some good :/

  193. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find vegetables and fruit from the local market...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

    Stop talking like everyone shares your privileges.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  194. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just having an hoa is enough to make me walk away; having to deal with someone else's opinion on your house sounds like a rental.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  195. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company I work for pays bi-weekly. I landed this job after being un/under-employed for 3 years. At the time I had $60 to my name. And the job is an hour and a half commute from where I was living at the time. Because of where my start date landed in the pay cycle, I had to wait 3 weeks for my first paycheck.

    Had it not been for a relative he was kind enough to front me some cash, I would have had to sleep in my car those first three weeks, in sub-freezing temperatures (and a few blizzards).

  196. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Assuming it's all electronic, the inefficiencies are negligible.

    No, they aren't.

    Signed,
    Someone who actually runs a business and has to arrange payments and file tax statements accordingly

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  197. Children like you are funny. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    No lawyer would take a case like this on a contingency since the amount earned would be too low. Instead, we would have you huffing and puffing in self-rightous indignation since you are still so naive to believe that the only thing holding you back is the grownups stopping you from screwing everyone else over.

  198. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mark-t · · Score: 1

    If you are poor, then you probably shouldn't bother with a car. A monthly bus pass will cost, perhaps $80 to $100... which is going to be far less than a taxi, and is probably even less than what you'd be spending on gasoline and insurance.

    Also... don't be late with payments, and then you don't get hit with late fees or disconnection issues.

    If you're waiting until you get paid to pay this months bills, you are already doing it wrong. The money you use to pay this month's bills needs to come from your previous paycheque, not your next one. That means you need to keep a monthly float, and you can figure out exactly how much that is by adding up all the essential expenses, which should include minimum payments on any debt. Do *NOT* let any bills go late or try to justify not paying one bill by suggesting to yourself that you will try to just double another bill next month simply because they won't just immediately disconnect you being only one month late. If you don't have enough money to pay all your monthly bills payments in one month, then picking and choosing which ones to pay this month and hoping to play catch-up next month just isn't going to work anyways... you either need to lower your expenses or find a better paying job. Again, however, if you are counting on your next paycheque to cover the bills you are facing right now, then you are already doing it wrong.

  199. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    They pay however they feel like it. Employees tend to like getting paid in smaller checks multiple times a month.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  200. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by insensitive_clod · · Score: 1

    The funds are available as a convenience... If the check you deposited doesn't clear, the funds are taken back... I JUST had this happen with BofA with painful consequences, as I had spent the deposit (which ended up as an overdraft on my account because the deposit was taken back).

  201. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Kookus · · Score: 1

    Bi-Weekly or monthly doesn't make any difference for being cash strapped. You make the adjustment once (which is the hard part) and afterwards it business as usual. Unless if you're someone who sees money in an account and has to spend it just because it's there. If that's the case, then a money management class or instructor may be the most beneficial thing you could spend some money on!

  202. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can attest to the interest rates. My transaction costs dwarf what I make in interest rates, in fact the bank just bundles those two together and just substract a nice bit of money every month from my account.

    I have a one-man company which earns about 1500 euro per month, my company bank account has around 5000 Euro on it, and my interest rate/transaction cost is 40 Euro per month.

    I am a bit lazy, but once in a while I dump all the extra money into a personal savings account, where I earn a wopping 1.5%, because these days that is about the maximum interest rate you can get. In the mean while the Tax agency says that interest rate on average is 5% so, I need to pay income tax on the 5%. BTW, the highest bracket income tax in the Netherlands is 50%.

    For single man businesses income tax is equal to personal income tax, since extracting money from your business into your personal account is simply personal. Companies that have stocks pay 40% income tax, but you cannot extract money from such businesses, you have to pay salary, which includes taxes that have to be payed by the employer, which makes this a bit equal again.

    It is a bit weird to take income tax from a company. Normally a company doesn't pay income tax when the money coming in (sales) is about the same as the money going out (cost, salaries). A company only needs to pay income tax when its bank account reserve crosses a threshold, this stops companies from stock piling cash and waiting until tax rates becomes lower in later years. If you still do stock pile, there is actually no real problem, because if the company spents this money again and the tax rates haven't changed, then this tax is payed back (because you are running at a loss, you can actually get money back from the tax man by averaging the profit and loss over several years).

    Financially for me it would be better to keep that money in the company account, since then I only have to pay this interest rate tax on the actual interest rate.

  203. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Shark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if you've read Rand, but that's not quite what she says.

    It is perfectly alright for one to help others according to Rand. The only condition is that you do it with consideration for your own benefit. The thing most people miss is that this benefit does *not* need to be material. You can help someone because it makes you feel good. That's entirely valid according to Randian principles on the condition that you value that good feeling more than the cost of said help. That is compatible with your Gandhi quote, btw.

    - OK with Rand: Giving 20 bucks to some homeless guy because you want to.
    - Not OK with Rand: Giving 20 bucks to some homeless guy because his condition somehow *entitles* him to your help.
    - Definitely NOT OK with Rand: Some thug(s) using force or threat of force to take that 20 bucks from you and handing it to an arbitrary group of bums they feels deserves your help. Typically as a selfish political strategy to maintain and increase that ability to use force.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  204. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    There's no difference unless you lack any sense of self control. The transition month between the two types can be tricky but still you're not losing out unless you took time off between jobs.

  205. Oklahoma Defined by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Oh, very few of those evil taxes... just fees for everything instead.

  206. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was government induced, and patriot act enacted. Checks of substantial sum (greater than $4999) must have a hold time of 5 business days, and and any more than $9999 must have a 10 business day hold time to prevent money laundering and terrorist money transfers. So if you transfer $11k from your brokerage account to your personal account, the first $5k is good the next day. Then there is a hold on $5k for 5 days, and the remaining $1k is held for 10 days. Anything beyond that, the bank is messing with you.

  207. Pay cuts, it sounds like to me by whitroth · · Score: 1

    If there's a fee for *using* the cards, then the employers, who presumably got a "good deal" from the vendors, have just given their employees a back-door pay cut.

                      mark

    1. Re:Pay cuts, it sounds like to me by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Hah - just what I said:
      Excerpt:
      A McDonald's franchise in Pennsylvania says it will give employees more payment options after it was sued by a former employee who says she was charged a fee to access her wages from a debit card.
      --- end excerpt ---

                    mark

  208. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    Well said.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  209. Post Offices by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Cashing payroll checks without fees attached should be a service provided by US Post Offices, along with offering accounts with an inverted fee structure (above a certain amount - say $10,000 - monthly fees start to kick in). Hey Bible-Thumpers: you say work is a morally good thing? Then make a real difference in the lives of the working poor via the USPS.

  210. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    Don't ask me, I only live here, not set policy.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  211. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by ppanon · · Score: 1

    Do you know many landlords who take debit or Visa? Or do they instead insist on paying cash so the money doesn't get reported as income?

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  212. NO by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The law is US dollars shall be accepted for payment; it is not a bi-conditional. You can pay in anything you wish but the recipient must always accept if you choose to pay in dollars.
     

  213. And for reference by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The cost to actually send the money to the employee direct deposit is $0.35 per transaction. That's what the payroll service pays, and what you'd pay if you did it directly. That is what ACH charges. It is a cheap system. That's why places are more than happy to have bills paid via ACH. When they do an ACH deduction, they pay the fee (the initiator pays), but it is so very cheap in terms of getting money. Much less than a CC.

    In terms of an actual check, it varies but is generally in the range of $0.75-$1 when you count the cost of the check stock, printing, envelope, and postage fees. Perhaps a bit more if you factor in labour (depending on how automated the system is).

    Neither system costs an employer much. Checks cost the bank somewhat more to deal with, though they have automated that to a large degree, but ACH costs them nothing (when they receive). The sender pays a small transaction fee and that's it. ACH is cheap on purpose because it can be, and is, used for massive volume and thus does well.

    No matter how you look at it, it doesn't cost much. The costs are mostly in the other services, as you of course notice from the cost of your payroll service that does all the other work for you (my folks used a payroll service when they ran their business for the same reason).

    Still a trivial cost as compared to all the others, as you point out. $15 is trivial shit compared to the other costs of having an employee, even a minimum wage one.

    1. Re:And for reference by sribe · · Score: 1

      The cost to actually send the money to the employee direct deposit is $0.35 per transaction... The costs are mostly in the other services...

      Yes, IIRC my payroll service charges me about $1 per. I'm not really sure, all I remember was that it was trivially cheap. (It actually is a charge over and above what a paper check would cost, because even with direct deposit they still print and mail a form for each employee, facsimile check at top marked "NON-NEGOTIABLE" and W2 info at bottom.)

      Still a trivial cost as compared to all the others, as you point out. $15 is trivial shit compared to the other costs of having an employee, even a minimum wage one.

      Indeed. It is absolutely despicable that any employer would try to push this cost onto its low-wage workers. The only justification for payment by debit card is as an option for an employee who, for whatever reason, would prefer it over a check or direct deposit. (And there are reasons: poor neighborhoods often do not have banks that offer free checking, nor reasonably-priced check cashing services. Just because you or I can easily convert a check into cash at no, or very low, cost, does not mean everyone can.)

  214. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tibit · · Score: 1

    Besides... you'd be talking about people who've committed enough cheque fraud to actually have a criminal record

    LOLWUT?! A bounced check doesn't equal check fraud. I have a separate checking account just to receive PayPal funds. I keep no balance there. One fine day by mistake I've paid for a bunch of things via PayPal without switching the payment method to the credit card (each and every time). PayPal submits the ACH transaction twice before charging your alternate payment method (credit card). The bank account ended up with hundreds in negative balance from all the fees ($35 per each try, and it was a dozen PayPal payments). It took a while to untangle. I also promptly got listed in one of those "persona non grata" databases in spite of having excellent credit scores and in spite of all the fees having been forgiven by the bank (after lots of hassle). So, I'm in a situation where my checks are sometimes rejected in spite of having excellent credit and sufficient funds, and I can't open a checking account without providing a lot of documentation first. I have never not paid a bill on time in my life, BTW.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  215. Ummm no not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    While these cards are a shitty setup, they are NOT company scrip in any way, shape, or form. They are denominated in US dollars and can be cashed out in that, or spent as that at stores that accept the reliant payment processor (Visa or Mastercard).

    Company scrip was money that could only be spent at stores owned by the company, not anywhere else, and had no value in terms of government currency.

    Don't make shit up. It weakens your argument. When something is bad, demonstrate its problems as they are. Don't try and invent new ones. When people find out you are lying they'll disregard your argument.

  216. well crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I would have to go to court over this one.
    And bill the employer for future fees.
    Can someone say class action?

  217. State of New Mexico too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I happen to know the state of New Mexico was also using this stuff a while back, for their unemployment insurance.

    Posting AC because I know juicy bits. I didn't learn about this by being unemployed; I learned by knowing someone who works at their Department of Labor. Basically what happened is that Bank of America came in pushed it hard, since it's so profitable for them to take this money away from the claimants. The state doesn't resist, because paying people costs some money anyway (not just the money you're paying; I mean other overhead) and Bank of America set it up so that it cost the state of NM less, if they shafted the people. So it was a cost-savings thing, combined with "who cares what problems we're causing for others" attitude and the usual corruption that is just totally rampant and unopposed in our state govt.

    What I find intersting about that last thing, is that externalizing costs is totally rational, but when you've got governments doing it, you have left the path of wisdom. Part of the reason we have government, is to fight unfair externalization.

  218. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by sabinelr · · Score: 1

    Look, if anyone is foolish enough to move into a development with a home owners' association, he/she probably has enough money to paper over any of the association's ridiculous demands. I just had a roof replacement done, and the roofer almost fell down and kissed my feet when I told him our neighborhood had no association, that we do what we like in our block and no one cares as long as it isn't too loud or involves crack houses. Now, back on topic, these new pay schemes are absolutely unconscionable. If the employer can't man up (woman up? gotta be equal here) and pay what was promised without some weasel scheme to pinch pennies, he/she should be sentenced to work at some low-paying job for several years with no option to advance. Jerks, I have never sympathized with those guys.

  219. Son of the "company store" scam. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Yes, this is a son of the old "company store" scam. I just looked at the California Labor Code section on this:

    212. (a) No person, or agent or officer thereof, shall issue in payment of wages due, or to become due, or as an advance on wages to be earned:
    (1) Any order, check, draft, note, memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness, unless it is negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount, at some established place of business in the state, the name and address of which must appear on the instrument, and at the time of its issuance and for a reasonable time thereafter, which must be at least 30 days, the maker or drawer has sufficient funds in, or credit, arrangement, or understanding with the drawee for its payment.
    (2) Any scrip, coupon, cards, or other thing redeemable, in merchandise or purporting to be payable or redeemable otherwise than in money.
    ...
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if the drawee is a bank, the bank's address need not appear on the instrument and, in that case, the instrument shall be negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount, at any place of business of the drawee chosen by the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

    So California law prohibits the "company store" scam - employers can't pay with a "gift card" that doesn't convert to cash. And if they pay using a bank, the check or card must be cashable, without fees, at any branch of that bank. The problem is ATM fees for off-network ATMs, which have become a huge profit center for banks.

    If the card is from a bank with a huge number of branches and lots of ATMs, it may not be too bad. If it's from some second-tier bank, it's a rip-off.

    1. Re:Son of the "company store" scam. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So California law prohibits the "company store" scam - employers can't pay with a "gift card" that doesn't convert to cash.

      I think they might be inclined to argue an interpretation of the law different from your interpretation.

      They may claim the gift card is "money" in an electronic form. Therefore it could be held to fall under (2) as a scrip, coupon, or card. Redeemable for merchandise or money.

      Redeemable without discount, but there is a service fee for the execution of the transaction.

  220. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the way, you're pretty much wrong about the whole interest-earning thing for businesses as well. Here in the UK, businesses earn about 0.1% annual interest rates on money in most bank accounts. The amount they save by deferring salary payments to monthly instead of some more frequent interval is negligible. The saving is in halving the admin overhead (relative to fortnightly payments) and making fewer financial transfers (for which banks will charge a fee).

    You're missing the point. The hand to mouth workers aren't complaining about 0.1% interest from a savings/MM account. They're not even online. If they were, they'd be complaining about the 20%+ they pay on the secured credit cards.

  221. why checks have anything to do with it? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    seriously, why is the system such that the bank has to worry about bounced checks?

    around here the banking system operates in such a way that you can't overdraw using your payment card(visa electron in most cases if you don't want credit). the banks don't take any risks with cheques and even if they did operate the now long buried cheque system they wouldn't have needed to give them to people they didn't want to nor would they have deposited the money before the payment cleared.

    as a consequence everyone gets to have a bank account in any bank and that's where you get your social security, your salary etc. you could say it's almost(or not even almost since it's a necessity) a human right here - no matter how badly you've screwed up. the only people going without one are those who are either dodging taxes or dodging debt recovery payments.

    and yes that card anyone(even with bad credit history) is good for purchasing online from pretty much anywhere that accepts visa, usable in grocery stores etc(the system is such that the electron cards are checked everytime they've used if they have balance, with most places having chip+pin readers - even the immigrant run kebab places, taxis..).

    lobby for a banking system from the 1900's, I say.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:why checks have anything to do with it? by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      Because that's a massive $30-$40 billion/yr revenue stream that banks fought tooth-and-nail to protect when the Credit CARD Act was passed in 2009.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
  222. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by sabinelr · · Score: 1

    I discovered years ago that banks will not honor paychecks drawn on their own banks. They won't cash them unless you have an account with them. Why can't we replace the crack users in prison with these guys?

  223. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?

    It mainly depends on which State you live in. Some States actually require weekly payment unless the business can land itself a special State exemption, and most have made the option of monthly payment illegal.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  224. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    My "local market" is QuikTrip. Do potato chips count as a vegetable?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  225. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by steveg · · Score: 1

    I don't write many physical checks (I had to order checks a few months ago to buy a car, for writing the down payment) but there are some things that checks are the best way to handle.

    I pay my bills via "check" through my bank's bill pay service. Most are delivered by electronic transfer, but in some cases my bank mails an actual check (my lawn guy, my exterminator, etc.)

    If it's a reasonably large expense to a small independent vendor, checks are often still the best option. They may not take plastic. More and more of them *can*, but it's not universal.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  226. GameStop did this 5 years ago by adamjgp · · Score: 1

    I used to manage a GameStop, and for the hourly employees they were all but required to get this form of payment. The real shitty thing is that most ATMs require you to withdrawl in $20 denominations. A few will let you do $10, but rarely can you go lower than that. For these part time hourly employees, sometimes their paychecks would be ~$50, making it difficult to get to that last bit of money which consequently could make up a significant percentage of their overall paycheck. They're total BS, and I empathize with anyone who has to get paid using such a draconian method.

  227. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    Comparing the costs of these cards to the cost of using a cheque cashing store is apples and oranges. Someone who gets a cheque can take it to a bank and use it to open an account.

    I don't have a problem with these cards existing, however, I am completely opposed to them existing without opt-out. Nobody should ever have to take your pay on one of these, not even for your first pay cycle on a given job. They should be offered for those who have no other options.

    Oh, and the kickbacks that some employers are taking from your industry? That's bullshit. That's got to stop.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  228. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by blach · · Score: 0

    I feel like basic financial management (what is a bank account; why should you save?) is the kind of thing that should be taught in primary and/or secondary schooling. Certainly for a large percentage of people it would be far more useful than (for example) certain mathematics or science classes, and far more beneficial to society as a whole -- and I say this as a person with a degree in mathematics.

  229. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    'm sorry some costs shifted to the employees, but you can always ask for DD anyway and debit cards keep a lot of people away from the pawn shop, liqueur store strip malls, they do some good :/

    Which is fine until the costs shifted to the employee shift their income below minimum wage -- then it's a class action lawsuit and some lawyers are about to make a shit ton of money.

  230. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by asylumx · · Score: 1

    National City got nailed by a class action suit for exactly this a few years ago. At the end of the day, they would process all that day's withdrawals prior to that day's deposits, so you could overdraft but then end up net positive later in the day, regardless of the order the transactions actually were in. Since then, PNC bought them out and PNC handles it better.

  231. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by lgw · · Score: 1

    That's certainly true. Assuming we're talking about someplace with the basic social and currency stability of America, said people are not adults by any measure. (Spending everything at once because of hyper-inflation or weekly robberies is an entirely different story.)

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  232. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by steveg · · Score: 1

    Really?

    I had an employer (during the dotcom era) that was flaky enough that I *always* went to his bank and cashed my paycheck. And did so as soon as possible, because if you waited a day it would probably bounce. Sometimes it did anyway, but presenting it in person meant no bounce charges, they just said try again later.

    Maybe it's changed since then.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  233. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    The moral of the above story is "NEVER OWN A HOUSE WITH A HOA"

    Now, get off my lawn or I will shoot you.

  234. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, but the biggies have faced Class-action suits because that practice isn't legit. So far all of them except Wells Fargo have settled out of court over it- Wells Fargo's been challenging it and may end up IN court over it.

  235. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not from Government checks, though... They're obligated to treat the whole, even now, as cash. They still put the damned things on hold for a lot longer than they're legally allowed to and use the Patriot Act as an excuse for doing it.

  236. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I think it should wait until kids have mastered basic addition and subtraction and multiplication and decimals, but that's it: they should start being exposed to it early (like around 9-10), but have more advanced classes in it later on in high school (where they learn about interest, compound interest, loans, collections, garnishments, child support payments, mortgages, etc.). This stuff is all pretty important for living in modern American society, and it should be taught in school. I don't know if it is or not, but it certainly wasn't back in the 80s and early 90s when I was in school, except maybe in an optional "home economics" class which college-bound kids weren't allowed to attend (and non-college-bound boys did not attend).

  237. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Teun · · Score: 1

    Talking about Walmart, last year the largest pension fund in the world, the Dutch ABP and today another 4 of them have withdrawn their investments in Walmart because of the miserable treatment of personnel by Walmart, including their refusal to accept unions as representatives of the personnel.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  238. Let's not forget what caused this... by jimmifett · · Score: 1

    The reason free checking disappeared and made things like this pay-card an option is big government trying to impose bad legislation to banks: the Dodd-Frank thing that all but killed free checking by cutting off the revenue stream that subsidized it.

    Now banks are looking for creative alternatives and one gets junk like this pay-card nonsense.

    Creative alternatives... like bundling bad mortgages together that banks were forced to accept in the first place by the community re-investment act and playing hot-potato with them until the market fell out. Adjustable Rate Mortgages? A creative alternative to be able to handle these forced loans to ppl who would not qualify for a normal loan. That turned out well.

    But hey, evil corporations and banks, amiright?

  239. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    I switched in '97 when the bank I was using bounced a check. When I asked why it bounced when I'd deposited more than sufficient cash to cover it, they said that cash deposits take 5 days to process going from Northern Virginia to Richmond and back.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  240. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.

    Not possible, as long as you have sufficient money in the account to cover the checks you write.

    Oh, you don't? Then that's the problem, not the order they process the checks.

  241. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by sabinelr · · Score: 2

    Well, that is good luck for you. Here are the gory details: I had just started working for Rois Manufacturing in Philadelphia. They paid me with checks drawn on First Pennsylvania Bank. I dutifully hustled over to the Center City branch before closing time, and presented the check. They told me to get lost, because I didn't have an account there. After a period of fruitless whining, I knuckled under and opened an account with them, and they finally cashed the checks. Now how I was able to get any money to open the account, I am not sure. If I recall correctly, my wife already had an account with them, and I was able to sign the checks over to her, but only after there was enough money in her account to cover the paycheck in case it bounced. To me, what this indicates is a basic unconcern on the part of employers, who just don't want to go to the trouble to find ways to make this situation more helpful to their employees. The attitude seems to be "I gave you a legal pay check, how you get the money from it is your problem. GFY."

  242. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by jonwil · · Score: 1

    The US needs to join the 21st Century and implement a modern banking system.
    Here in Australia I can log onto my internet banking and transfer money to any other bank account and it wont cost me a cent. All I need is the BSB number (which maps to a specific bank and possibly a specific branch or group of branches depending on the financial institution) and the account number.
    I can also pay for things at most retail stores (and other businesses) with EFTPOS using my bank card and it also wont cost me a cent most of the time (although some businesses do charge fees for using EFTPOS). These days you can even order a pizza and pay for it with EFTPOS.

    I pay all my bills straight from my bank account and dont pay a cent. My private health insurance, home insurance, rent, internet and mobile phone are all debited automatically. My home phone and power bills I still get as paper bills but I can pay those straight away with a direct transfer from my bank account to the companies involved.

  243. Re:How is this accurate - not for weekends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unions had nothing to do with the genesis of the 2 day weekend. It began as a cost cutting measure at the Rochester Can company during the depression - the half day Saturday was eliminated, ie the cost of starting up the factory for a half day, so as to keep more employees on the payroll during that bleak time. Throughout the Grate Lakes, manufactureers socialized and the idea was quickly picked up and also implemented by folks like Ford.

    The Rochester Can company did not survive the depression, the two day weekend did.

  244. Mussolini's definition of Fascism by rsborg · · Score: 1

    This is my money, the state and its corporate partner shouldn't be making money off me when I try to get it.

    I just wanted to interject this: conservative or liberal, I hope we can all agree that big business colluding with big government is often times a recipe for bad things to happen.

    Isn't that Mussolini's definition of Fascism [1]?
    " Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

    Other cute nicknames that sum up the state of our wonderful nation since the new millenium:
    Crony Capitalism
    Military Industrial Complex
    Kleptocracy

    [1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benitomuss388775.html

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  245. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is hard to avoid them around here. I'm only a board member because there are not enough people to fill out the board, and the only thing worse than dealing with the HOA is dealing with what happens to your property values when the HOA goes into receivership due to not having a board. So I'm stuck until I can sell my house and GTFO: hopefully to some place without an HOA.

    However, I will say this: in townhouse communities, there are a lot of things your neighbors do that directly impact you and the value of your property, and even your free enjoyment of such. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a townhouse community without an HOA. While some of the stuff can be nitpicky, some of it is frankly stuff that has to do with sanitation and the fact that lots of people like allowing their yards to become junk yards, or at best, not caring for their property at all. That's bad enough when that person is a neighbor with a bit of land between you and him, it's horrible when you are literally sharing a firewall with that house.

    And frankly, most of the requirements for the houses match the original builder specs and are very objective. I'll grant that some things like "your yard looks like crap" could be subjective on the edge cases. In our community, however, we have so little manpower to do inspections that if we bother to mention it, it isn't an edge case: your "yard" is probably all weeds or dirt.

    And in before people saying the county will do something about it. The county won't do shit. They're understaffed, underpaid, and most of the government is setup to give every individual the benefit of the doubt on their own property, even if they've opened a toxic waste dump next door.

    The thing I always point out about HOAs is that they are actually an opt-in organization. That is to say, if you don't like it, don't buy in that community. That may be dubious to you, but it is perfectly reasonable as a measure. People buy houses for specific non-property criteria all the time, at least the HOA has to tell you that they are there and what the requirements are when you live there.

  246. Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumb americans never cease to amaze me.
    The rest of the world simply has the money wired via bank transfer and doesn't waste a single thought on it anymore for the rest of their lives.

    1. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that syphon profits back?

      its about taking something you need to do (pay your employees) and finding a way you can earn a profit doing so.

  247. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by steveg · · Score: 1

    My first job after college I was exempt and was paid monthly, for twenty years. Non-exempt emplyees were paid semi-monthly.

    Then I started with a dotcom and everyone was paid bi-weekly -- I started as non-exempt but became exempt part way through. The amounts of the checks changed during the changeover, but not the timing. 26 checks a year, which took some mental rearrangment in figuring out when to pay bills.

    For the last ten years I've been exempt, and have been paid monthly. But all other employees, including the hourly employees, are also paid monthly.

    I don't think there *is* a "norm."

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  248. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cash is not free.

    It doesn't appear from thin air, it has to be managed, carefully, all over the damned place, everywhere people expect to be paid.

    Checks are not free, they cost less than handling cash, but SOMEONE gets paid when you cash it. Either directly like a check casher or indirectly like at a bank. Banking isn't free... You're paying that machine or teller who cashes your checks one way or another, PERIOD CASE CLOSED END OF STORY.

    Payroll debit cards, do you feel a trend yet, not free, act surprised.

    Why does anyone think moving money is FREE? I wouldn't move a wheelbarrow full of PAPER for free! I charge by the pound in fact, and at a hefty premium since I'm now a target of every opportunistic criminal out there.

    You know what, I have a kid, fuck moving cash, I don't want anything to do with it. Good luck finding someone to do that for free boys and girls.

  249. Credit Card fees replaced by Payroll Card fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering when they'd get around to Universal Access fees.

    Use the banking system.. pay up.

  250. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by rsborg · · Score: 1

    I've long felt that schools have been doing a disservice to pupils since the 70's; preparing grade school kids for life should include basic money management, awareness of the state and federal tax code, family law, and the penal code.

    Add to this the very dangerous fact that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" fact, and essentially, it's a tax on poor people to NOT provide basic finance and penal code instruction.

    Is this catastrophically bad education policy mirrored in other countries? It's sad, but most US high-schoolers know more about driving safety than about basic money management.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  251. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by steveg · · Score: 1

    May be a regional issue.

    Many years ago, when I signed up for my company's credit union, the credit union president told me that credit unions on the east coast were better for their members than credit unions on the west coast, because banks on the east coast were so hard to deal with that the credit unions *had* to be "nicer" to compensate. He claimed that it was a progression as you moved east to west or vice versa, for both banks and credit unions.

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that there is any sort of realtionship between the two, but there's no question that the banks I've dealt with in the east were much more of a pain than banks in the west.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  252. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Biweekly at minimum in Massachusetts.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  253. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I DARE YOU to go park in front of a check cashing store for a few hours.

    Bring your nicest car!

    Most people commenting about how bad prepaid debit is have NO IDEA what it's really like to be poor.

    It's like your pissing on the quality of soup at a soup kitchen.

  254. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Which misses the point.

    Yes, it is not "my" money until they pay it to me, but that just changes the wording. The reality is that the longer they hold the money, the longer I *don't* hold the money.

    I really could care less about the negligible interest I would gain myself, still it should be pointed out that paying monthly, as opposed to twice a month or more only helps the companies, it does absolutely nothing for workers. Even if they make only 0.1% interest, that is 0.1% interest you are not making. So, yeah, they aren't making a killing at your expense, but they are completely on the positive side of this issue, and they get even more positive the less often they pay you. You, on the other hand, only gain inconvenience.

    Point being, when you are telling people to "man up and budget", you aren't helping anyone any more than the guy who tells unemployed people, "go get a marketable skill, if you want to be employed". Both are absolutely reasonable positions, but both put the entire burden on the worker, while the companies reap the benefits of your responsible nature in either case. And that's a position that you don't see non-Americans take very often.

  255. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you could get rid of cursive as well as all the parts of health class that are lies. Seriously how many hours of a child's education are spent telling them pot kills and condoms are next to useless? Really we just need to revamp life math, home economice, civvics, health, PE, and social studies and we could prevent a lot of kids from having to go through the school of hard knocks. The whole tax code would be hard to teach but just what the popular deductions on a 1040ez are as well as some talk of money for basically nothing to keep the kids interested. They have to teach money management, taxes, and sex education to junior military personnel because the social impact of not doing so is so high on the military, and come to think of it, it doesn't take a lot of time either.

  256. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    So the problem really does seem to be the employee's fault. As for the minimum deposit, the CU my wife works at has a minimum of $5 and that gets waived on a regular basis.

  257. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pjrc · · Score: 1

    I run a small business. Very small, only 3 people. Like virtually all small businesses, we use a payroll service. There are so many laws and regulations regarding payroll that it's crazy not to use a service. They add value by taking care of all those little details, so we're in full compliance with the many regulations. Of course, the service charges fees. There are several of these payroll processors out there, so they do have to keep the fees reasonable to compete, but they do incur real costs. If it were so easy, nobody would pay the fees, but indeed payroll processing is one of the main business functions that's outsourced. The fees are real.

    The main fee is per pay period. If you pay weekly, the fees are twice as much as every 2 weeks, which in turns is roughly twice as much as monthly. It doesn't matter if you use direct deposit or live checks, the fees are the same either way. When it's an actual check, we write the physical check based on their calculations.

    We pay every 2 weeks to our 1 hourly employee (and we would NEVER use bank card payment with hidden fees), and monthly for the 2 of us owners, because paying ourselves only every month saves on the fees.

  258. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    For a while, I worked as a substitute teacher in my school district. I had one longer-term engagement teaching the at-risk students - the ones that the district had pretty much given up on, but would not outright expel. That group of kids got basic financial management classes - balancing checkbooks, among other things. The "normal" students didn't have classes like that; I never asked, but I'm guessing the administration thought they'd just pick it up naturally.

  259. This has nothing to do with the bank... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with the banks and everything to do with the employers. Banks cannot force an employer to issue debit cards. No, employers do it because it saves them money. If you are angry about this, don't take it out on the banks, blame your employer. They don't want to pay the ACH fee to direct deposit your check each month, so they have sought a cheaper, for them, alternative. Banks like this scheme because they collect a fee everythime the debit card is used, plus, any left over balance after a period of time is defaulted. So, since a bank will make more from a debit card paycheck than an ACH transaction, they will gladly make the switch and not charge your employer or charge very little to your employer. But ultimately, it is still your employer making the decision.

    So people should quit blaming banks about this. The banks are just a means to an end. It is the employer that is behind this. I'm curious if the CEO of the business gets paid this way or is it just the rank and file employees?

    1. Re:This has nothing to do with the bank... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But ultimately, it is still your employer making the decision.

      Let's try a little thought experiment... If your employer offered you a one time $200 bonus, to switch to this method of receiving your pay, providing you committed to keep that method of pay for 1 year or return the incentive, would you do it?

      How about if they gave you 33% of their incentive from the bank?

      Or people who chose the card method of payment get awarded an extra $5 per month?

      Whereas... only cash withdrawls or bank transfers from the card incur a fee, and ordinary purchase transactions are free.

      Eventually... the employee market must come to some value proposition which is the minimum extra wage they would be wiling to accept to be happy to switch to a less-desirable payment method, and then, that arrangement would by definition be mutually beneficial....

    2. Re:This has nothing to do with the bank... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Except the employer would never do any of that, because the whole point of doing this is to save company money at employees' expense. If they compensated the employees for the inconvenience, that would completely defeat the entire purpose of inconveniencing them. It's not like companies are doing it just to piss their employees off - they just don't *care* if they piss their employees off, as long as they're saving money.

      Yes, obviously, if it cost me 5 dollars to move my paycheck from the card to my checking account, and my employer paid me 10 dollars to take the stupid card, then it would be in my best interest to take the card. Equally obviously, they would never do that, cause why would they?

    3. Re:This has nothing to do with the bank... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      then it would be in my best interest to take the card. Equally obviously, they would never do that, cause why would they?

      To entice you to take the card. Of course, the incentive to the employee is temporary, and does not have to exceed the kickback that the employer gets.

      The idea is: if you're enticed to take the card, and the burden is made high enough to switch, and you are only allowed to make the election in a certain way at a certain time, the incentive might get more people happy to take the card, who won't be willing to go to the trouble of switching back to cash.

    4. Re:This has nothing to do with the bank... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Ah. So the old bait and switch, where they tell you "we will give you 5% extra on your paycheck", and then 3 months later they go like, "psych! Just kidding! By the way you can't switch back." So basically, the Verizon method.

      That does sound more like something companies would do, yes (and would get sued over. And would probably win, because they would have much better paid lawyers and more experience in creative totally-not-bribery.)

  260. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    They operate solely on cash because they are in the country illegally and can't have a bank account because they are in the country illegally and you pay them in cash because you know this and don't want to pay their FICA and withholdings.

  261. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    It's not my intention to be judgmental about anyone's circumstance.

    I come from modest beginnings. I'm not the best handler of money. I have a friend who's a good example of what I'm talking about.

    He and I are from very close parts of town. We both come from divorced homes. He went to art school and I went to college. We're both pretty good in our respective fields. He is over 40 with no children. I am 37 with several children.

    Despite the fact that we had similar educational backgrounds, he can rarely go an entire month without overdrawing his bank account. I own my own home and he does not.

    He's my friend so I don't judge him. I don't look down on him. I don't think this makes me a better person than him. It does make me more fiscally astute. On several occasions I have asked him why he doesn't make certain changes and the answer usually ends up being that he prefers his system of financial management to one with more stringent rules. He has the freedom to pick up and move whenever he wants to, while I do not.

    Basically, people choose their own lives. There are pros and cons to every decision. Choose yours widely.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  262. That and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonalds could set a good fucking example for once and publicly state this is horse shit. It would be good PR for them or any company.

  263. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Don't be ridiculous: why would Paypal not be considered acceptable? Ebay (which owns Paypal) is a huge, multibillion dollar company now, and Paypal already sends reports on you to the IRS if you exceed $20k in transactions per year.

    Your post sounds idiotic, BTW? When have "liberals" ever restructured any system in recent memory, in a way that hurt that system? Why would Congress restructure the banking system, when the banking system OWNS Congress (what do you think that bail-out was?). If you're referring to ObamaCare, you're an even bigger idiot: ObamaCare was a giant boon to the insurance industry that did nothing to lower costs, and a lot to increase the profitability of the insurance companies.

    You sound like one of those morons who thinks the Democrats are "liberals", rather than being in bed with large corporations.

  264. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    And People cannot even budget that far into the future in the US.
    That is why their are so many pawn shops.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  265. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    B-pay . Greatest thing since sliced bread. I had a cheque book once back in the 80s just to see what all the fuss was about. It just seemed so antiquated and clumsy I never bothered with it.

  266. State government have been doing this for a while by schivvers · · Score: 1

    Hey, Why not? I mean the state of Louisiana has been doing this for a while. ( http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/louisiana_will_begin_issuing_t.html ) I'm usually fairly pro-business, but this is just flat out abuse of the working and working poor. I am irate that one of my employers was listed as someone who does this.

    --
    Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally wo
  267. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    must depend on location/industry.
    I have onyl encountered weekly myself.

    And really with everything electronic and automated it should be daily, or they should be giving you interesting on your money that they are holding.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  268. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    You don't withhold FICA and taxes for housekeepers and landscapers; they're private contractors according to the IRS, not employees.

    Have anything else retarded to say?

  269. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by volmtech · · Score: 1

    That's called farming. One crop per year, one paycheck. Unless you lose money and can't pay back your loan. No paycheck this year for you. Too much of that and the bank seizes your assets. :(

  270. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much cash do you really need in a month? Almost everything besides rent/utilities can be put on credit/debit cards. You get your paycheck, you pay your rent/mortgage/bills, you take out some cash for cash required uses. Then hopefully you have enough left to cover your entire credit card balance, plus some savings. I'm paid monthly, and the only time the cash issue comes up is when doing things like moving apartments and needing extra cash for security deposits, or wanting to make a large purchase off Craigslist. If you are carrying credit cards balance on purpose, just put your everyday purchases on a separate credit card, pay that in full, only be charged interest on what you are carrying, not on regular purchases. Of course the poor people on weekly wages can't do this, because they are too irresponsible. Normal people can. I never understand when people say they have to wait till Friday to buy a videogame or whatever. I charge as much as possible when there are not fees associated with that. I want the frequent flier miles.

  271. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Mortgage + car loan can be enough, especially if you're on low income.

    Hell, my mortgage is 40% of my pre-tax salary at my first job. That makes it over 50% of net salary, and my mortgage isn't much more then renting a single room these days (I bought when houses were rather cheaper).

    When I bought my first house my mortgage worked out at 18% of gross salary, or 23% of net salary, or (taking into account travel costs to work, bills, food, etc) around 120% of disposable income. I had to get a lodger.

    Get a mortgage these days for the same property at the same loan-to-deposit ratio on the same salary and you're looking at the basic mortgage being over 50% of the gross salary.

  272. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    - OK with Rand: Giving 20 bucks to some homeless guy because you want to.
    - Not OK with Rand: Giving 20 bucks to some homeless guy because his condition somehow *entitles* him to your help.
    - Definitely NOT OK with Rand: Some thug(s) using force or threat of force to take that 20 bucks from you and handing it to an arbitrary group of bums they feels deserves your help. Typically as a selfish political strategy to maintain and increase that ability to use force.

    So, in regards to TFA, I presume the employers using this system are the thugs in example 3, and the 'banks' issuing the cards are the "arbitrary group of bums"...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  273. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Cederic · · Score: 1

    I took a ten month holiday once, does that count?

    Right now I can only cover around 9 months without calling on credit; using lines of credit available to me without asking I can go around three years (at 1.25% p.a. compound).

    What, that's meant to be hard? When I was young, yes. But monthly payments back then? No trouble at all.

  274. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    "i'm sorry for some costs shifted to the employees"

    The problem is, to the employee it feels like "Thanks for all your hard work. Now, to get paid, please insert 5$"

    Its pretty hard to not feel like your being deliberately screwed over by this process.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  275. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    I've only ever seen that with "member-owned" credit unions, and in those situations the $25 is less of a fee and more a purchase of stock in the company.

    FWIW, $25/share is a steal in a lot of these cases.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  276. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop screw up your credit. Why can't you just use credit cards? Paying $5 in credit card interest if you charge a bit too much is a lot better than paying $35 bounced check fees. If an emergency expense comes up, pay less on your cards, accept the interest rate on your balance. That's still much less than using a payday loan or pawning something to get emergency money. The people who can't do this have destroyed their credit or already maxed out their cards. I've never done that.

  277. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Ah, but you see many employees can't have a bank account. If your history with bounced checks is bad enough, no bank will ever open an account for you. Sad but true.

    Excuse me if I sound like a troll, but checks are what my parents used in the early 1980s. How the hell are these still even present in the US today, let alone a dominant form of exchanging money?

    Yea, and what's with this "cash" thing, anyway? My great-great-great gran-pappy used 'cash,' so it's obviously now a uselessly antiquated technology!

    FYI, just because humanity develops a new method of doing something, doesn't mean the old methods are no longer valid or useful.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  278. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Why can't we replace the crack users in prison with these guys?

    Because crack users can't afford their own Congresscritters.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  279. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    and the banks have fun with the float time. If they see a check come through for a high amount that can drain the account, it will go through fast. Instead of one bounced check, that big one magically finds its way to the front of the line so that all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.

    This is why I no longer bank with Commerce.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  280. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by flacco · · Score: 1

    > nothing is free, handling cash is not free, writing checks is not free, setting up DD for employees not likely to stick around more than a year is not free.

    Correct, these are called "costs of doing business" and should be treated as such by the employer, not clawed back from the employee. Auctioning off the employees to the card companies adds insult to injury.

    Fuck those employers/slave-traders.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  281. Take legal action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to minimize the 1984 effects, you must stand against it. Require that your employer provide your pay free and clear, or take legal action to require it.

    FYI, some states have laws requiring it to be without fees.

  282. Write your senator and representative by techdolphin · · Score: 1

    I just read how many low-wage workers are being paid with prepaid cards that require fees. Often these workers do not have a choice in how they are paid.

    As a constituent, I urge you to pass legislation that would ban fees on prepaid cards that are used to pay wages with the possible exception of overdraft fees.

    1. Re:Write your senator and representative by mysidia · · Score: 1

      As a constituent, I urge you to pass legislation that would ban fees on prepaid cards that are used to pay wages with the possible exception of overdraft fees.

      No overdraft fees on cards. They are not a check. And the transaction is electronically authorized.

      If the bank electronically wrongly authorizes the transaction, they should be responsible for the resulting overdraft.

  283. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    If you don't mind me asking how did you run up debts that take away 50% of your income?

    Maybe his income just sucks; it does happen, especially in a society where it's common business practice to enact an employee-harming policy to save $21,000/yr while paying the lazy-ass CEO a $21,000,000 annual bonus.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  284. Real Estate Holding Company? No. by sirwired · · Score: 1

    No, McDonalds doesn't own the Real Estate either. They do not buy the land for the restaurants, they do not own the buildings, they do not lease the restaurants to the franchise owners. (I don't know about the equipment... I expect they don't own that either.)

    They don't provide payroll processing, they have nothing to do with hiring, they don't even provide POS systems to the restaurants.

  285. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    The hand to mouth workers aren't complaining about 0.1% interest from a savings/MM account.

    However the AC I replied to was, explicitly, and that's what I was addressing.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  286. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by faedle · · Score: 1

    Savings accounts, by Federal banking regulations, are restricted in how many withdrawals you can make in a 30-day period. I believe the number is less than 10.

  287. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by metrix007 · · Score: 0

    There are other types of visas, as well as people with greencards. Citizenship is irrelevant to this discussion.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  288. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want a check to come through for a high amount first. So, they re-order the checks rather than sort them by date. Pas one big check and bounce 5 little ones. The objective is to bounce more checks, since each unit is a fixed "overdraft fee" of $20, $30 or more dollars.

    Recent US consumer protect legislation is supposed to stop this.

  289. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    I really could care less about the negligible interest I would gain myself, still it should be pointed out that paying monthly, as opposed to twice a month or more only helps the companies, it does absolutely nothing for workers.

    This is an attitude I struggle to understand. If an employer has reduced overheads, that is good for their business, and makes it more likely that they'll be around to pay the staff next month as well.

    Maybe for big businesses with vast war chests you could make an argument that the staff don't see the benefit. However, in the economic climate we've had for the last few years, with even well-established small (and sometimes not so small) companies with reasonable business models going to the wall all over the place for little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, dumping a load of extra administrative overhead (running payroll, filing tax returns) and additional costs (bank charges for making the additional payments) on those employers doesn't seem to help anyone.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  290. Minimum Wage Laws?? by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

    The laws say the company has to pay you minimum wages, it doesn't say that is how much you will actually receive. Next step is for the company that is paying you to get part of the money you are being charged as a kick-back. Or just issuing their own cards then charging outrageous fees to recoup some of what they are paying you.
    But of course that will never happen here in the good old USA because all of our companies are honest and follow the highest moral standards.

  291. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my bank there is no float for "valued" customers. You can deposit up to $5,000 and have the funds available for imediate use once you establish a rapport of not depositing bad checks.

  292. This is not union, this is the businesses by gral · · Score: 1

    They want to lower cost, so they pass the charges to have accounting payment etc on to the employee. My ex-wife got a minimum wage job once, that paid on one of these cards. Cash withdrawl $3. You could only withdrawl half of your check at a time up to a certain amount, so you got charged about $6 no matter how much you made. Then you also had charges to move the money to a REAL account etc. She quit the same day, because we calculated it up and found that for her $140 / week she only made about $100 with all the fees etc.

    --
    Scott Carr
    1. Re:This is not union, this is the businesses by mysidia · · Score: 2

      They want to lower cost, so they pass the charges to have accounting payment etc on to the employee. My ex-wife got a minimum wage job once, that paid on one of these cards. Cash withdrawl $3.

      Employees in such a situation need to make a complaint with the regulators that they are being paid LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE. That is, the fees required for them to convert their wages into a usable form must be subtracted, in determining what they are actually being paid.

  293. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    I once bought a house in a subdivision that had a HOA. I never received any kind of information about the HOA and the rules at all. I wasn't aware there was a HOA until the day of closing. I received a HORRIBLY scanned (like black on dark grey) copy of the HOA rules and regulations which contained many items which would have made me not put an offer on the house had I known about them.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  294. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by matfud · · Score: 1

    Landlords tend to require standing orders to be set up.

  295. Re:cashless society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cash doesn't require a transaction fee

    Which is the motivation for the banks. As long as people can fall back to cash, it sets a limit on fees.

  296. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    If I see an old lady who tripped and fell, I just leave her there too. If she's too weak to walk, too weak to get up, what's she doing in the street anyway? I used to help old ladies up, but sooner or later they'd just fall down again.

    So... as a result, call me a terrible person, but I leave people to their own problems, no matter how basic, I have my own to deal with.

  297. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    If you are poor, then you probably shouldn't bother with a car. A monthly bus pass will cost, perhaps $80 to $100... which is going to be far less than a taxi, and is probably even less than what you'd be spending on gasoline and insurance.

    You must live somewhere that has decent public transit - in my town, the buses stick to an archaic hub-and-spoke system, meaning every single bus has to run through the central station at least twice a day. This is in a city that covers almost 80 square miles. In practical terms, that means if I were to take the bus to work (I live on the southwest end, and my office is on the far northwest side), I'd have to be at the bus stop by 6:30 AM in order to arrive on time by 8, wouldn't be able to catch another busy home until 6 PM (and ride it for a friggin' hour), plus having to walk at least a half-mile to each bus stop; in other words, unless the hours I'm not on someone else's dime are worthless, it's just not feasible.

    don't be late with payments, and then you don't get hit with late fees or disconnection issues.

    Easier said then done when your income barely meets with your expenses, many of which cannot be controlled (I don't get to set my utility rates, or the payments for my wife's student loans) and quite often rise as a result of being poor, or rather, having a low credit score.

    Your post exemplifies one of the major problem with being poor in America today: instead of feeling compassion and wanting to help, many people who are better off than you just sneer and make smart-ass remarks like, "Well, it's your own fault for not budgeting better." Gee, thanks Captain Asshole, that really helps me feed my family.

    To that end, a famous axiom: Do not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. I have, and I can tell you from experience that poor shoes suck, and thanks to the royally fucked concept of modern American economics, are really hard to trade in for middle class ones.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  298. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in the US I've never seen an employer who paid monthly. It is either weekly or bi-weekly, I don't know if I'd work for an employer who paid monthly. There's too many cases where employers are in the process of going belly up and try to get a few week or two of free labor from their employees. Its another reason why a lot of retirement programs are going third party, employers raiding/not paying into retirement funds to eek the last few bits of profit out of the company before they file chapter 11.

  299. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    You can learn helplessness. The only way to get out of that is by proactively working at it, WITH THE HELP OF OTHERS.

    You're not helping.

  300. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/30/1220189/-Employers-Pay-Workers-with-Costly-Debit-Cards

    One case where an employee sued over this type of payment. She wanted an actual check or cash due to the fees associated with the card.

  301. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Every job I've had save two were paid fortnightly; those exceptions being when I worked as a network tech at a university (paid monthly) and the 3 years I labored in a glass factory (paid weekly).

    Never been on salary.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  302. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    I find vegetables and fruit from the local market...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

    Stop talking like everyone shares your privileges.

    I honestly had no idea that there were inhabited places on this planet that don't have a market selling vegetables or an equivalent shop within the reach of a long walk. Everywhere I ever lived or visited had either markets, shops, supermarkets, home delivery service, street vendors, or some combination of those. I can understand there being no shops in the wilderness but in an inhabited area it sounds unbelievable.

  303. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Terwin · · Score: 1

    Just having an hoa is enough to make me walk away; having to deal with someone else's opinion on your house sounds like a rental.

    Not everyone knows just how much authority HOAs have and are willing to use.
    My first house had a HOA that ignored my request to plant roses in my yard, then threatened me when I did it anyway, not even realizing that inaction on their part gave me permission to act on my part(according to the bylaws that I had read but apparently the board had not).

    I eventually sold the house at a loss(the value was supposedly up but I had to sell it fast to avoid committing regicide on the board because of the level of harassment I was getting for my roses).

    (Now I live in a MUD and the rules explicitly say that anything that is completed before they they get an injunction is automatically authorized, and their only means of action is via court order)

  304. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    Actually, the proper procedure is to make sure they're comfortable and call an ambulance. If it was you on the other hand, I'd probably just laugh and kick you a couple of times for good measure fucktard.

  305. Customary versus reasonable by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Your problem is you're looking at history with today's rules.

    Reasonable is not the same thing as customary and sometimes people mistake what has always been done for what always should be done. Unions won a set of work rules and benefits that generally strike a pretty good balance between the company needs and those of the workers. At the time unions were much more forward thinking about what might constitute a reasonable work place. Given some of the excesses of the time it wasn't hard to see problems. Things are better now so unions need to think harder about what to focus on next.

    A 40-hour work week was "not reasonable" when unions were fighting for it.

    Sure it was. It just wasn't customary nor was it mandated. It clearly has proven to be a reasonable balance between economics and lifestyle. The exact number wasn't the important bit. It could have been 44 hours or 36 hours and the same basic goal would have been accomplished which was to allow workers to have some form of life outside of work and to compensate them more if they work what could be considered lengthy hours. The number 40 has no special significance other than the fact it is a round number.

    Doing something to avoid "1 worker death per $1M spent on a construction project" was "not reasonable". Health insurances was "not reasonable" for rank-and-file employees.

    Same argument. It was reasonable to ask for those things. It wasn't however customary at the time. If you have an argument for something that unions should be fighting for now then by all means lets hear it. You mentioned excessive management pay which is a pretty good start. What else you got? Or are you just defending unions as flawless organizations who never do anything wrong?

    Yes, when executives demand worker concessions, and then give themselves millions more in pay, it's the unions that are being unreasonable. Suuuure.

    No that would be management being unreasonable and that obviously happens quite a bit. In theory the shareholders or the board should take care of excessive management pay but if they don't the union certainly could take a stand. However I don't recall ever hearing about a union seriously demanding cuts to management pay or striking because of it. Sure they gripe about it a lot but when push comes to shove the unions generally are only concerned about their own paychecks. If you know of an example to the contrary I'd love to hear it. I'd love to see a union being the one that seriously looks out for the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the company. It shouldn't be hard to a union to work with shareholders to cap excessive management pay but you never see unions even try.

    Executive compensation is about 300 times worker compensation. That is not reasonable.

    You'll get no argument from me on that. Only way that makes sense is if the executive can somehow prove they bring in 300 times the value which is a pretty tough argument to make.

  306. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by slew · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what bank you deal with, but at my bank funds are available the next business day after I deposit, and the first $100 is available immediately. Maybe that's "float", but not enough that I'm going to squawk.

    Many banks use a formula to determine the length of funds hold. Usually that formula is based on length of time an account is opened and the average (daily) balance, but there are statutory limits on this (aka Reg CC). Of course for their best customers, deposits are often available immediatly (or at least some of it).

    Historically some banks had also taken into consideration if overdraft or other account fees can be generated in the case of a dishonored check (e.g, if you deposit the check and then write against that before it clears, you can get a transfer from savings overdraft fee or minimum balance fees if the hold amount is tweaked), but much of that shady practice was eliminated by the feds. Unfortunatly for those folks that have a habit of bouncing checks (and perhaps fortunatly for the rest of us that suffer from them), banks are allowed to place a hold on the check for a week (and most banks do).

  307. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Unless you are being paid pennies you should not be living hand to mouth.
    It's not a money management issue. Many of us were just fine 10 years ago, and could maybe even sock some money away. But now, 10 years later, we make the same salary, everything costs 3 times as much, we've spent whatever we socked away before, sold everything we could, downgraded our lifestyle as much as possible, and are living hand to mouth.
    If wages kept up with inflation, this wouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately, most companies don't even give you a COLA that keeps up with the CPI lie, let alone keeps up with the actual increases in the cost of living.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  308. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I come from the great country up North that kicked USA ass solidly in 1813 in the Battle of Ogdensburg and it was thought to me in 1995 in highschool.

  309. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.

    Not possible, as long as you have sufficient money in the account to cover the checks you write.

    Oh, you don't? Then that's the problem, not the order they process the checks.

    That depends on if they process all checks and debits before all deposits.

    If they do all deposits first, then there should be no bounces/overdrafts. If checks and debits get processed first, then it is possible for the account to show as overdrawn, even if a few seconds later when the deposits are processed, there would have been enough to cover the checks. However, it seems that for each check that shows insufficient funds at the moment of processing would generate a bounce fee. And those could add up to where the deposits, when processed, would no longer be adequate to bring the account back into the positive.

    Really, the ethical way to process would be deposits first, then checks and debits. Then if the balance shows negative, penalize the account holder for their carelessness. Otherwise, the account should be considered in good standing.

    Or a "compromise" would be to process transactions in the order in which they happened. Then if a debit or check causes a negative balance, keep a tally of the fees incurred, but don't subtract it from the actual balance until all transactions are processed. And if the final balance is still positive, then call it a day. If negative, then take whatever actions are needed to get the account holder to bring it back up.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  310. Virginia Tax refund card difficult to set up by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    I'll have to ask my accountant. Really. First time I ever saw it. w00t!

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  311. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    Really? My experience has been the opposite. I've had a number of salaried jobs in the U.S. over the last 25 years and the only ones that paid monthly were public service (i.e. government) jobs.

    All of the provide sector jobs paid twice monthly.

  312. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    Oh? What exactly did that comment have to do with the discussion at hand?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  313. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    I'm in Australia, so our banking system is probably different. My mortgage here is just like another bank account; it can be direct-deposited into just like any other account. It has a web interface that lets me setup regular payments, which is what I use to transfer my weekly "allowance" into my general transaction account - my mortgage has far more limits on transfers and payments than my normal account, which is why I don't just use if for transactions.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  314. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by AaronW · · Score: 1

    It's the same on the west coast. There are some decent banks (usually local banks) but credit unions are the way to go out here too. The funny thing is that a bank that started out local in my town is now starting to expand all over the Bay Area and beyond, but then again they are known to be consumer friendly.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  315. Do like in Denmark by sirlatrom · · Score: 1

    Have a national, obligatory system designating an account for salary payments and make legislation preventing the charging of any fees or the like on the salary transaction. http://www.nemkonto.dk/da/Servicemenu/Engelsk/NemKonto-Easy-Account-for-companies

  316. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by AaronW · · Score: 1

    That is not my experience at all. I have transferred large sums between my brokerage and personal accounts numerous times in recent history in excess of 5K and there was never any delay as to when I could start purchasing stock.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  317. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    Solidly? Were my schoolbooks in error when they made claim of an American victory during that war?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  318. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Then most people are being dumb with their money. Weekly or monthly, you're still getting paid the same amount. If you can't manage on monthly, it means either:
    1) You have no self-control, and spend all your money when you earn it, leaving the last few weeks bare
    2) You have no self-control, and can't save any of your money to keep back as a buffer

    Now, there are some people who earn so little that they legitimately cannot save. But that's not "most", or even "many" - it's the people living just this side of the poverty line. For most people who say they can't save, it's more that they won't - either they've over-extended themselves with commitments (think, bigger mortgage than they can afford) or they're unwilling to sacrifice some luxuries in the short term.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  319. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    Right-o. Enjoy your Randian worldview, if that is even possible. Have a very nice day.

  320. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    It has to do with the "they don't listen, they don't want to learn" line. If you had tried (poorly) to get out of it in the past, and obviously failed, what's the point of wasting energy and trying again?

    Well, I know what the point is, presumably people reading this do too. Sometimes others need reminding.

  321. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I distinctly recall the positive characters of "Atlas Shrugged" being extremely offended at the notion of anyone giving them anything, so long as it was perceived as an act of altruism (rather than self-gratification on behalf of the giver).

  322. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I hate the mandatory direct deposit myself. It's very convenient if you're not like me and do the biweekly login to the web site to verify your payments and such. It's annoying to me in that I'm a bit of a procrastinator, I don't keep on top of financials, the paycheck websites are always extremely difficult to use, and the paycheck was my reminder to update my checkbook or quicken, check to see how much I'm getting paid, see how much vacation has accrued, etc. Yes, maybe I'm an evil person for hating to deal with finance, but the mandatory direct deposit is really encouraging me to stop paying attention.

    As for people without bank accounts being charged money to use the card, this is really not too much different from the current method. Ie, employers get a check, and they go out that night to a check cashing store to convert it to cash to pay the bills, and they have to pay a very large fee to do this. Yes it seems illogical to do, because the fee is often larger than the cost of of opening a checking account and yet one report said 28% of Americans use these check cashing centers rather than having a traditional bank account.

  323. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by BrokenSoldier · · Score: 1

    That explains. it. Thanks for clarifying. A friend of mine here in the US has his set up similar, but what he and his wife did with their first home is that their Dad mortgaged it (tax deduction) and my friend and his wife pay their dad every month the mortgage, the average for the utilities/etc, and a little extra to cushion the account. Their credit looks pretty good after several years of student loans, they have a nice but adequate house, and all their normal bill expenses are paid in one payment. No regular mortgage will operate that way here, though, unfortunately. Basically they 'rent' their home to 'own' from their dad. I thought your approach sounded so simple I wondered how you did it. Cheers! CAS

    --
    If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
  324. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Than they should move somewhere with better access, duh.

  325. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ATM cash withdrawals and in-person bank withdrawals do not impact that limit, however.

  326. Boots Theory by MrNemesis · · Score: 2

    It comes up every time in this situation, but it bears repeating. Living hand-to-mouth costs a bloody fortune.

    =======

    The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

    Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

    But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

    This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socio-economic unfairness.

    --
    Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  327. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    No, I am just terrible with money. :-}

  328. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even in third world countries they teach these things under the subject called "Civics" and we call ourselves Civilized country and we teach half-assed sex education.

  329. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Nethead · · Score: 1

    BoA charges $6.00 if you don't have an account on a check issued by them.

    Ah, you did mention scumbags. Never mind.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  330. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by compro01 · · Score: 2

    or on the 15th and the 30th.

    The term for that is "semi-monthly".

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  331. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by ogrizzo · · Score: 1

    Actually, you usually get paid before the end of the month: in Italy, e.g., payday is on the 27 for private employees and on the 24 for public ones. So it's not that bad.

  332. Ditto - union thugs make my job SUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a non-manager, non-supervisor, licensed professional Engineer, I am NOT a part of management and supervision, the union contract even PROHIBITS me from "giving work direction" - regardless, the union thugs who make up a minority of the bargaining unit are not WORKERS, they are thugs, pure and simple who treat me with absolutely NO respect for the fact that I have a professional obligation to make THEIR workplace safe for THEM, before I make profits for the company owners. I will never forget just how miserable my professional life has been because of these union thugs, and tell every young person thinking of entering university education in Engineering to NEVER work at a unionized company.

  333. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Shark · · Score: 1

    But self-gratification does not need to be material, which is the more common misconception I was trying to correct. The key point is a clear understanding of mutual benefit. The nature of that benefit is for the giver to decide. Giving selflessly is a 'sin' in Atlas Shrugged because it is perceived as self-destructive and offencive (even from the receiving end) or as Dagny puts it: "A trade where someone gains and someone loses is called a fraud."

    To go back to my previous example, you don't actually give the homeless guy 20 bucks, you trade him that 20 bucks for how it makes you feel to do so.

    On a personal note, I became a lot more generous once understood that. I'm not offended by the fact that I'm selfishly investing in my social environment: People who need my help still get my help but I also take my own benefit into account. For me, there is genuine value to a smile and a thank you. There's also the fact that people I help would be keener to help me which is potential return on the investment. Treating it as an investment also helps me spot leeches and allows me to be smarter about where I put in my resources.

    The principles are the same as in finance: If you keep investing your resources in things that make no profit, you won't be spending them in the economy very long. If you make smart investments, you can keep investing a lot longer and also empower others to do the same.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  334. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

    And what would you suggest as an alternative? So much for your "welfare of his fellow-men" when you have to force people to give to charity via socialism, because that is eventually what happens when you and the rest of the collectivists decide on things.

    The fact that you can't see the moral implications and the moral hypocrisy of what you preach staring you in the face is quite disturbing.

  335. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mysidia · · Score: 1

    What you'll find though is pride gets in the way,

    If pride is in the way... then why the heck are there so many people getting food stamps and welfare checks, paid for by us taxpayers?

    Does forcible offering of assistance imposed by the government circumvent the pride problem?

  336. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your story, bro, is too good to be true. Why don't you scan a page or post a link to your contract. Imagur, photobucket, or whatever will be sufficient. Pics or it didn't happen.

  337. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mysidia · · Score: 1

    the kids aren't there in school to learn the material. Their parents aren't doing their job as they should.

    Around here... truancy laws are vigorously enforced; non-compliant parents get fines imposed on them, threats of jail time and loss of custody of their kids, if their child is not sufficiently in attendance.

  338. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the implecations are of handling any of that stuff incorrectly ...

    It's a global problem. High-school teaches one to be a wage-slave, not a citizen.

  339. Stop putting loonies out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever time I think I agree with you and want to go ahead and make the leap to Libertarian, Rand Paul opens his fucking mouth and reminds me why I haven't yet. The only Libs that ever get any speaking time or publicity are the Pauls and Liberman. Get some candidates that aren't raving loonies and we can talk.

  340. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by jbo5112 · · Score: 1

    You can cash a check at a branch from the account holder's bank. Until fairly recently there weren't any fees to cash it, but now a some banks (notably Bank of America) are charging. These fees are a small part of everything dishonest the banks have done. The United States has given illegal amounts of power to the banks.

  341. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Does America not have any equivalent to the Truck acts than ban company stores?

  342. They're horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US welfare system is set up to kick you to the curb to die in the streets if you have 1$ too much in "wealth." These cards are terrible for poor folks because the government can then track thier pay more effectively and find an excuse to kick you out of your Section 8 housing and/or cut your Food Stamps. I used to be shitty poor so I know how this works. I would cash my paper check for 1% at the local Paki Hut and then pay all my bills in cash (and got receipts for these). When certifying times came around, Social Services had access to your account balances and if you had anything in there above some piddly small amount (like $50) then your benefits would get cut. So the appropriate response to this is to simply not have a bank account. If the employer gives you a check, once you cash it there is no trail of where the money went, so you can itemize your expenditures to make sure they add up to the amount the gov thinks you got paid and you'll be free and clear of the tax man. You suppliment this with cash only jobs and they can't know your actual worth. If I had to use this card, and did not constantly cash it out when I got it, but used it like a debit card which it is intended, then an itemized list of my purchases is but a computer click away. Probably no subpeona required to get it either. I certainly hope you didn't buy too many items that the gov may not like, like Sudafed.

  343. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it thought to you? Or taught to you? Maybe its just the Canadian translation :)

  344. it wouldn't work out by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    have zero financial management ability whatsoever.

    I think this is the critical part for that little bit, plus they might not stick around for the requisite 5 months either.

    I'm reminded of a saying: It's expensive to be poor.

    I'm going to expand on that a bit. "Rich" and "Poor" are more statements of assets than income. My mother is a personal accountant. She's known of people with more or less identical incomes and family situations, but one's a multimillionaire who lives in a modest house, and one's broke every month that lives in a slightly less modest house. And no, the difference in houses doesn't come anywhere NEAR explaining the difference in assets. In addition, every so often you hear about some janitor dying of old age and his will donates his estate to the University or whatever, and it's several million dollars.

    I thus present my theory: Being 'rich' or 'poor' is less about income than it is about spending. Poor people tend to get horrible effectiveness with their money - they end up paying lots of non-productive fees just for using money(NSF, check cashing), high interest rates(credit cards if they're lucky, payday loans, 'buy here pay here', etc... if they're not), and any cash they do manage to save ends up in a mattress losing value due to inflation as opposed to invested making a return.

    Middle class and rich are far more effective. Please note that buying a $100k pizza that comes in a diamond encrusted box isn't a move of the 'rich', it's a move of a poor person who managed to become rich temporarily due to income managing to exceed their expenses, and is a sign that they're on their way back down.

    One example from Pratchett's Diskworld was boots - the poor man would buy cheap ones with cardboard soles, the rich man would buy good leather ones. The good ones cost 10X as much as the cheap - but the cheap boots only lasted a few months, the good ones would last decades. But because the poor man could never scrape up that 10X, he was actually stuck paying more for footwear... I remember reading a real world example where a poor person would buy the smallest ketchup bottle(for example), even though the economy size with double the amount was only like $.25 more because it was the cheapest unit, not because it was the cheapest per unit of Ketchup... Many poor people have economic blinders on.

    That being said, I think regulation is needed to keep employees from being raped too badly by these debit cards. I also have the fear that where a poor person might be able to understand cash, they might not understand their card's balance, especially when it costs money to so much as check.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  345. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should meet my wife. Next week is long term.

  346. Financial stability and mobility by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    He has the freedom to pick up and move whenever he wants to, while I do not.

    While at some point having a stable home is cheaper than the alternatives, his constantly overdrawing his checking account is, I feel, a separate issue from mobility, though I can understand why you/he has them conflated.

    There have been a number of actors who essentially declared hotel rooms their homes for extended periods of time. Heck, I've lived in tents for well over a year at this point for my job. My job means that 10% of the time I'm sleeping in a tent. Oh well.

    Take your friend, for example. I figure each overdraft costs him $50. That's $600/year. Over a decade that's a very good start on an emergency fund. If he decides that living in long term motels is his gig, that's his gig. Apartments he can move out of in a month if he wants? Sure, why not? He can be mobile if he wants to and is willing to sacrifice the benefits of a stable living area, but that's his choice, and is actually separate from overdrawing his accounts.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Financial stability and mobility by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      While at some point having a stable home is cheaper than the alternatives, his constantly overdrawing his checking account is, I feel, a separate issue from mobility, though I can understand why you/he has them conflated.

      I left out an important detail. So I can understand why you'd see them as separate issues. The piece of information that I left out is that my friend's financial decision making have led him to live in his mother's house. His mobility could be regarded as a side-effect of his inability to purchase his own home or to get a lease.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  347. Your fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait? Are you claiming that you assumed the school was gonna teach your kid something that you claim is terribly critical to know, but didn't and you couldn't even get off your ass and teach it to them yourself? YOU threw them to the wolves. But actually I doubt that, you sound like someone who has never had any kids. Regardless, what is to stop you from teaching them how to balance a check book, pay & understand thier taxes, know thier contitutional rights, or if it is legal to beat thier spouse? Your whole statement is passing the buck and playing the helpless victim. I hope, if you did have kids, that they didn't pick that bad habit up from you.

  348. My experience in school by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    It seems the cocky fuckers blathering on about how their school taught these basic concepts

    I'll admit to being warped - both my parents are accountants, so I practically grew up with this stuff. Double entry bookkeeping in college? My first reaction was "This is how mom taught me how to balance my checkbook!".

    But until I got to college and that class from what I remember my lower-middle class primary school system barely covered 'practical financial management'.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  349. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, and you know what else? If I close my CU account, I GET MY $25 BACK! It is most certainly not a fee!

  350. 16 tons by dryo · · Score: 1

    This is the 21st century version of company scrip. You dig 16 tons, what do you get? Another day older and deper in debt.

  351. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

    If your internet + cell phone bill is higher than 2% of your AGI, you've got a problem.

  352. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was interested in the concept of a food desert, so I went to look up where the closest one was, and lo and behold, I was living in one. I lived next door to a Weis supermarket. Apparently, that doesn't count as access to food.

  353. FCC: Only We Can Regulate Unlicensed Spectrum by tepples · · Score: 1

    and if you brought your own internet you were not allowed to use it they would have people checking if there were any signals floating around that were not theirs.

    I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States, the FCC would have shut down that practice. See this story from nine years ago.

  354. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mjwx · · Score: 1

    uh.. just live lighter for 4 weeks.

    I think US companies just like to spend more on unnecessary paperwork.

    monthly and directly to bank account is the norm over here.

    Same in Australia, direct debit (straight into my bank account).

    Monthly is preferred, but not always the case. Some jobs I've been paid fortnightly, my current job is weekly. Businesses prefer monthly because doing 12 payruns a year is cheaper than doing 26 or 52 payruns, for many small businesses it means hiring one book keeper instead of two.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  355. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by mjwx · · Score: 1

    uh.. just live lighter for 4 weeks.

    I think US companies just like to spend more on unnecessary paperwork.

    monthly and directly to bank account is the norm over here.

    You know, for as much as I see people from European countries bash on big corporations, you guys sure seem fine with letting them earn interest on your money for an extra 6 months a year.
    The benefits to monthly payroll are purely for the employer- they don't have to spend as much processing payroll since it happens half as often, and they can earn more interest on the money before giving it to you.

    What utter bollocks.

    Bollocks spoken by someone who knows nothing about accounting. The costs of hiring extra accountants and bookkeepers to do weekly pay runs will take more out of your pay than the alleged 6 months of interest (which again is bollocks) would add in. And yes, your delusional if you think that cost wont come out of your salary.

    As ABG points out, bills are issued in arrears, the same as your salary so it all balances out. If you're smart, you stay ahead of your regular bills (rents, repayments) by a few weeks or a month.

    I'm willing to bet you're the same kind of idiot who thinks putting everything on the card is making them money when it is costing them money via merchant fees (banks charge merchants for accepting your card, merchants raise prices and pass this on to you). If you cant effectively budget for monthly salaries, you completely fail at money management.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  356. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    nothing is free

    No, nothing is free. It's not free to pay your employees, but those costs are part of the cost of doing business.

    If you're going to make your employees pay your costs, then be honest and pay them less.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  357. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I didn't word my statement clearly.

    No, I wasn't "charged" to be a member but I had to agree to sequester $10.00 in my account as my membership stake or some such.

    If and when I decide to close the account, I get my $10.00 back.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  358. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Guppy · · Score: 1

    I don't recall anyone sitting down with me and explaining taxes, the penal code, family law (with regard to chihldren out of wedlock), and how to manage my checkbook. Other than only cursory explanations from my parents and some half-assed sex ed in school I had to figure out on my own what the implecations are of handling any of that stuff incorrectly.

    One of the reasons I remember the teachers and administrators at my public elementary school fondly. Our school had a special program that met once a week, outside of normal school hours; during these classes we would learn about things that didn't fit neatly into the required curricula. Balancing your checkbook was one of those topics. Along with writing checks, we had a basic primer on the fractional reserve lending system, and the power of compounded interest (and which side of the compounding you wanted to be on).

    The basics of investing were also covered, with an eye on practical application that went further than what might be covered in the regular economics class. For instance, while the economics class might tell you the basics of how stocks function as part of a capitalist economic system, but our special classes would explain things like broker commissions (and how they might give rise to conflict of interest), all the while running a fantasy investment simulation that provided some hard lessons to the students who chased after penny stocks and day-trading quick bucks.

  359. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food Desert

    Food Deserts definitely exist, and I getting healthy food isn't easy for everyone. But if you're in one, find out where the Asians and Hispanic immigrants go for their groceries. Somehow they always seem to manage to set something up, even in the worst inner-city areas.

  360. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in Australia, and we usually get paid fortnightly here. Everyone I know who's been paid monthly has been offended by it. Your bank account fluctuates less, and next week is never that long away. You also know what day of the week your money becomes available without thinking.

    Mind you, I lived in Germany once and was surprised by the number of things that are monthly. I imagine Europeans tends to think in months much more often, and Australians/Americans think in terms of weeks or fortnights—just a cultural thing, caused by and creating convention

  361. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It absolutely does burn a hole in your pocket! Poor people are poor for many reasons but one good one is they can't manage thier money and have poor impulse control. I was in the Army and we got paid monthly or biweekly. For whatever reason though alot of people chose the monthly payout. What you would see is partying like a rockstar for that first weekend, then ramen noodles for 2 weeks, and that last week they couldn't get food or buy gas or anything else and they'd be floating checks left and right. If you have little impulse control you'll stay poor forever.

  362. Interest by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

    If your employer pays you directly into your bank account or gives you a check that you can pay directly into that account, then whatever the various fees your bank may charge you for transactions, you can presumably offset them against the interest that you earn by having the funds in your account.

    When they are on these cards, presumably they are in someone else's account. And that person is earning interest on your money.

    If someone ever tried to do this to me, there's no way I would let the money stay in the card account. I would take it all out immediately and put it in my own account. One transaction, which adds up to a lot of interest that I get to keep.

  363. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by ppanon · · Score: 1

    It appears that is frequently in the case in the UK. I have yet to encounter that requirement in this particular location in North America. Admittedly, I prefer to avoid moving and have only done so 4 times in 20 years.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  364. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucky. I get paid monthly. My rent is due on the 5th and I get paid on the 8th. Neither the land lord or employer is being helpful.

  365. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike basic spelling.

  366. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Word to the wise, real estate agents need to be carefully monitored, and you need to make sure you are getting all your paperwork and READING all your paperwork

    Word to the wiser: if said paperwork includes an HOA, keep walking. For every legitimate repair and upkeep issue that they can enforce, there's at least two nitpicks they'll bring to bear on you that you'd never have imagined, and there's bound to be another house out there which won't subject your painting scheme and holiday decorations to the sensibilities of a panel of self-styled suburban martinets.

  367. living mobile? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Okay, that makes much more sense, but does alter my perception.

    He's not mobile, he's living with mom. He's actually LESS mobile than you or I. I could move out and put my house up for rent in a couple weeks, for example.

    It would cost him as much to live somewhere else as it would for me to gain an additional residence, at most, depending on relative costs and how quickly I could rent out/sell my current place.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  368. Gunshannon v. McDonald's of Shavertown by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then perhaps the most honest way to say it is "Natalie Gunshannon v. McDonald's of Shavertown", where "McDonald's of Shavertown" refers to whatever entity has the right to trade as McDonald's in Shavertown, namely franchisee Albert Mueller.

  369. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Mostly because of double digit inflation that they will not admit to.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  370. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by dcroxton · · Score: 0

    From the link: "residents in deprived neighborhoods tend to stay where they associate themselves, and don't travel to neighborhoods outside their socioeconomic background. For example, a resident of a deprived neighborhood, living near the boundary shared with an affluent neighborhood, would not cross a street or walk a shorter distance to go visit a grocery store in an affluent neighborhood." So it's a food desert if someone chooses not to walk to the nearest grocery store because it's in a different neighbourhood?

    --
    Sincerely, Derek

    A curious little blog
  371. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by scribble73 · · Score: 1

    There isn't a single convicted Felon in prison somewhere, who doesn't agree with you.

    tt77

  372. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by scribble73 · · Score: 1

    The point isn't that we don't figure these things out for ourselves.

    The point is; that employers and banks aren't giving us a choice.

    tt77

  373. Banks are NOT your friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The companies are undoubtedly getting kickbacks in some form or another to do this.
    Corporations aren't going to be satisfied until everyone of the working class is a slave.

  374. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    The point isn't that we don't figure these things out for ourselves.

    The point is; that employers and banks aren't giving us a choice.

    Look, I'm as anti-establishment as the next guy, but when you make blacket statements like that you just look stupid. In THIS particular argument you're out of line. The Gov and big business don't want me to be able to balance my checkbook? You're rediculous. The reason schools (by the way, THAT is the topic at hand, just trying to keep you centered) don't teach essential life skills such as check books and the other topics I've mentioned is becuase for the last 40 years the emphasis by liberal educators has been to teach "tolerance", "winning isn't everything", and other bleeding heart nonsense. Do you really believe that such feelgoodism crap is emphasized in Asian schools?
    As far as banks and employers not "giving us a choice", I'm curious to know what choices my employers aren't giving me? They make me unable to balance a checkbook (I can), or understand the implecations of choosing not to follow certain rules of civil conduct (I do, by the way), or what an happen if I refuse to pay back a loan or not maintain my credit? I'm not saying the system is perfect, it isn't, but choosing to live a life that's out of control and devoid of thrift or legal hassle is a choice denied me by the man? You're off your rocker.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  375. Illegal? by nobaloney · · Score: 1

    The last time i paid employees (admittedly years ago) it was illegal in California to pay by any means except cash unless you offered your employees a way to to get cash at no cost, on company time.

    We were in the garment manufacturing business (yeah, I know), and we paid a check cashing truck to come and park by our back dock area and cash checks for our employees.

  376. Re: back to how is this leagle? by Giantpants · · Score: 0

    http://www.occ.gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/insights/insights-payroll-cards.pdf So i did a search "yeah on Google" to see which company's are using such insalubrious cards, the it hit me. When i was a kid, they tried this once before, when i worked at a warehouse in New Jersey back in the 80's needless to say it didn't go over well. Then i found this articular summited to "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Community Affairs dept", a government agency inside the Dept of Treasury. Out on the web for everyone to see. It give all the reasons why banks should push this crazy agenda and also nothing that would protect the person with this type of bank theft device by any means. see Section II it will piss you off.

  377. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by moonwatcher2001 · · Score: 1

    Cooking is not an option if you can't afford to live in a place with a kitchen.

  378. Disgusted by Dr+Floppy · · Score: 1

    When I read the NYtimes article about this, I was disgusted. I shuttered my Chase/JPMorgan checking account about a year ago now and Im glad I did. I knew the bank was slimey but they dont seem to know what being low is. Its been one thing after another to show that they care 0% for their customers, I remember when I closed my account they didnt even try to keep me, not that it would have done any good. Congress shuts down one avenue for easy profits and they turn around and start nickel and dimeing(sp?) us even more and giving bigger bonuses to executives for screwing up and pissing away peoples pensions. Since when did anyone say that people who work on wall street as execs should live like gods with no accountability until someone with an even bigger stick is annoyed enough by the little people to whack the greedy/lying/s.o.s*** exec and put them in jail for a pathetically short amount of time in a federal resort? Move your Money! Message your representatives to amend the Dodd/Frank Act and make bankers work for their bonuses and profits instead of collecting them like drug dealers hand over fist....

  379. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    I am not a fan of big banks and I do most of my banking with a CU, but chase has an excellent prepaid debit card they call "chase liquid".
    It's similar to a fee based checking account. You pay a monthly fee and that's it. You can use it as a debit or ATM card. You can add money at the branch or at an ATM. You can have direct deposit. You can't write checks and there is no overdraft. It's worth looking at. I think PNC also has a similar product that is geared more toward transitioning you to a regular checking account.

  380. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    The problem is when there is no other option. You should be able to get paid your full pay without fees. I also think you should be able to cash checks for the full face value by taking them to the issuing bank. Unfortunately that is not currently the case. I would love to see this fixed by legislation.

    It's not fair to pass these costs on to the employee. The employer know exactly what their banking products is and what it costs and they take that into consideration when they negotiate a pay rate. The employee doesn't know that when they are agreeing to a pay rate they will be dinged on a portion of that due to the banking choices made by the employer.

  381. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    How about giving 20 bucks to some homeless guy to keep him and his friends hopeful enough to stay in society instead of forming a mob that takes what it wants until it is crushed by an expensive war effort and everyone is left worse off after they are forced to spend most of their money on security.

    See most feudal societies with weak kings for a reference.

  382. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Sorry I commented up thread so no mod points, but I like the cut of your jib.

  383. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Holy CRAP, the Canucks have mind meld!

  384. Health Care not Unions by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I am pretty sure that had little to do with Unions. It had to do with US healthcare and an aging population. When over half your workers are retired, and the healthcare benefits are more than half of all your salary costs, well you get the picture.

    It has little to do with Unions, and more to do with the inflated cost of health care in the US along with the insurance companies that feed off of it.

  385. This is VERY common in the trucking industry... by tech10171968 · · Score: 1

    Trucking firms in the U.S., especially the larger companies, have handled payroll in this fashion for years. You get a card issued from ComData, TCH or some similar company. Not only does the card hold your paycheck (similar to a bank card with direct deposit but without the account), it's also necessary for refueling at most major truck stops (don't worry; the diesel doesn't come out of your paycheck, the card's just for authorization and tracking purposes). You can also get an advance of a limited amount toward your next paycheck. It sort of works like a combination fuel card/debit card and can be quite convenient.

    The big problem with all this, of course, is that the fees for checking your balance or withdrawing money from an ATM can be ridiculously high; I've personally seen some people spend up to a quarter of their checks on transaction fees alone (I'm truly not making that up). That's why a smart driver will immediately opt for direct deposit into his own bank account; you have no choice as far as accepting the company's card (you need it for refueling) but you don't have to volunteer for the repeated ass-raping you receive for actually using it for your own finances. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, but some of these drivers "need help". Seriously.

    --
    This space for rent!
  386. Perhaps a better example... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    When the employer plays Unions against one another.

    Recently had a couple of instances where I thought the hiring practices weren't exactly fair.

    Problem: Positions were with a different union. Your union doesn't care, won't help as they don't want to lose a member to another union, the position union doesn't care as you are not a member. Result: Employer does whatever they want with no recourse (short of just ditching career and looking for employment elsewhere, or just sucking it up bitterly).

  387. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Cooking is not an option if you can't afford to live in a place with a kitchen.

    I'm not sure if you mean living somewhere that has no kitchen or living on the street.

    Actually I could cook quite a lot in a single saucepan on a camping stove that runs off just about any liquid fuel. I would need the stove, a saucepan, a knife, and a chopping board at a minimum plus ingredients. Also somewhere with good ventilation to put the camping stove, ideally outdoors.

    I understand actually having a knife on the street might get you shot by police and if you mean homeless I guess everything you own will get robbed regularly.

  388. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by rgbscan · · Score: 1

    You totally reminded me of this story about a guy who desposited a fake check for $95,000 and due to a bunch of banking screwups ended up legally entitled to the money. Check it out... http://patrickcombs.com/95g/

  389. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be a faggot. Honestly. If you chose to live somewhere with poor access to food or water, you've made bad choices. Sure this may be unavoidable in 3rd world countries, but it isn't in America. God bless.

  390. Biweekly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the employers that pay biweekly also rip off their employees by an entire 2 weeks pay every few years (when there happen to be 27 pay days that fall into 1 calendar year) by claiming they can't pay them more than their annual salary in any calendar year. The sad thing is some of the employers are so ignorant of math they think they're not doing anything wrong.

  391. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Morbid+Curiosity · · Score: 1

    Corporate scrip? That dystopian Cyberpunk future is sounding that much closer...

  392. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I show up and find a payroll card on my desk, I'm taking a cab to the bank, transferring the money to my own account, and taking a cab back. I'll be doing it on company time and expensing the cab rides, any service charges I have to pay, and maybe even the coffee I drink in the way. Every payday.

  393. Follow the money.... by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    As a cost cutting measure I am mystified when direct deposit is excluded.

    On the surface the payroll company and the company are using the employee wages (earning interest) without paying interest. The transaction fees are part of this "skimming" plan.

    Since most landlords are not happy to have anyone pay via credit card because there is a 1-5% service cost there are other issues because the funds cannot be electronically transferred to pay for rent, insurance or other credit debt.

    Individuals need to go on record (write a letter) and complain that this is not a fair and equitable arrangement and that they are unhappy with it. No threat to quit, no consequences just a simple registration of dislike.

    A copy of the letter should be filed perhaps with a cover letter with state and federal regulators. And yes Spanish and other languages are fine.

    Homework assignment: Research the historical context behind the lyrics http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/classic-country/sixteen-tons---tennessee-ernie-ford-14930.html

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  394. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    I'm Canadian, so we don't really have that sort of thing up here.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  395. Prepaid maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $.35 per ACH x 10,000 employees = 3500 per pay period x 26 pay periods = $84,000/year

    Paying employees with prepaid means one $.35 ACH per pay period to the prepaid card company and send them a spreadsheet on how to divide it up to employee accounts.

    So there is very much an economic incentive beyond kickbacks for employers to use prepaid, and many will break their state laws to do so.

  396. It isn't about unions. by ananthap · · Score: 1

    It isn't about unions.

    It's about banks charging fees to their customers - who happen to be mass enrolled daily wage employees - with the connivance or at least knowledge of their employers.

    Banks should introduce a zero balance, no frills (and no charges) category for these accounts.

    It isn't about unions. Should it be about class action?

    OK

  397. this article did like the russian rocket today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never had a chance of staying on track

  398. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    I guess you are a liberal then because a bunch of conservative politicians got into trouble for not paying those things back in the 1990s. Of course, liberals got a pass when caught doing the same thing.

  399. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by guinea+pig+C · · Score: 1

    I have searched high and low on where to find a bank without ATM fees but without success. Am I missing something obvious?

  400. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    So everyone that hires Merry Maids is liable to get in trouble for not withholding taxes? You're a complete moron.

  401. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by toddestan · · Score: 1

    It's not the lack of a kitchen, it's lack of available/affordable/reliable transportation to get to market that has the inexpensive fresh fruit and vegetables. A lot of people will take for granted a car and the ability to shop around to find the best prices and food. For poor people, the options can be a lot more limited and they may have to rely on a small corner grocer instead of being about to drive to a warehouse store or to the farmers' market.

  402. Missing the point! by idunham · · Score: 1

    Well, duh. Of course the union isn't the employer. They're a group whose purpose is to represent, and negotiate on behalf of, the *EMPLOYEES*. So, why shouldn't the employees be allowed to negotiate certain aspects of others employment agreements through a group founded for that very purpose?

    There, FTFY.

    A contract about the terms of hiring workers is NOT negotiated by the one hired, if it's negotiated by a union. So why should I be bound by a contract that I had no say in to participate in an organization even if it promotes positions that I disagree with?

    Freedom of association is an important right, and it's a good reason to allow unions. Similarly, the right of petition is important.
    But does that mean that a union should be able to effectively block the right of all employees to be unassociated (without which freedom of association is meaningless), or to force them to petition in favor of a cause which they don't support?

    And don't say "You're free to go work elsewhere, so your freedoms aren't infringed."
    Would you say that if someone were fired or not hired for being an atheist? What the immediate cause was that the other employees didn't like that attribute?

  403. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume that everyone has equil capacity, that is false. Never heard of IQ, mental retardation or mental illness?

    That's why schools have grades and why you prefer some educators to others. We do not live on some giant level field where all are equel except for their effort.

    If you are lucky enough to be born to parents that can feed you properly, and take you to the doctor when you are sick or hurt, that is an advantage. One that more than 3/4 of the world does not share with you.

    Did your parents introduce you to logic and critical thinking? Or did they indulge in "Magical Thinking", where things just happened, don't ask why (AKA "Because I said so."). Yes, thinking is learned at an early age, schooling can help later on, but the later it's learned the harder it will be to learn.

    Do you have any subject you find difficult to learn? Welcome to your bit of practical retardation. Not everybody has trouble with it.
    I assume that you have subjects that are easy for you, welcome to your bit of genious.

    Our physical brains are a result of our family genetics, our physical fitness, any brain injuries, physical, chemicle and even conceptual (as our brains physically change as we think, and how we think). And our minds are the product of our brains, our experience, and the decisions we've made.

    BTW, if being poor is the result of being lazy, why have the poor traditionally grown physically old DECADES earlier than the wealthy? Working hard without enough rest and improper nutrition is the fastest way to grow old prematurely.

    The well off like to think they put themselves where they are by their own sweat and determination, but a good, sturdy, and longlasting house is easier to build upon a solid foundation placed on solid ground, away from flood, wildfire, landslide, underminement, and earthquake hazards. But it can still get struck by lightning, hit by a meteor, driven into by a drunk, etc. dispite all precautions taken.

    And like that house, random, unexpected things can happen to lives too. And when they don't, that's the definition of good luck.

  404. Employee lose by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Because employer can avoid paying employee insurance, contributions to govt.

  405. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by RevDisk · · Score: 1

    Quoting Gandhi as a pseudo religious or sociological reference is equal to quoting Ayn Rand. Both had some good ideas, and some really bad ideas. If you read closely, you'll notice he said "at some point" which implied (IMHO, accurately) that situations vary. And I've seen enough cases were it is true. You can only help folks so much before you give up. It's a bit different if they have a chronic illness, beyond their control. But it definitely applies to anyone that can but won't.

  406. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by lgw · · Score: 1

    You should really make an account if you want to have a serious discussion. Goodness knows /. needs more of that.

    Making the basic wise choices with money doesn't require a high IQ, it merely requires copying the behaviors of those who are doing well instead of those who are doing poorly.

    Yes such wisdom - like all wisdom - can be hard won, but that's what you work towards if you want a good life: wisdom. Laziness is orthogonal to what's important, and IQ barely relates. And it is a good an just world where the wise prosper and the fools suffer - that's what those words mean.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  407. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (not the same AC as GP)

    it merely requires copying the behaviors of those who are doing well instead of those who are doing poorly.

    Ok, I'll copy what politicians do! Tell your kids not to copy Snowden, who gave up a 200k job so he can crash at some Russian airport!

    And it is a good an just world where the wise prosper and the fools suffer - that's what those words mean.

    Then government is just and good. I love Big Brother!

  408. And next year - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is such a joke I can't begin to go down the list of issues working folks should have with this.
    If it "costs too much" to pay workers using traditional means, than please, re-evaluate your need to even be open.
    In an ever-growing market to improve profit and screw everyone else, this was bound to come up on Slashdot....
    Aren't we all supposed to get paid using bitcoins by now?

    Problem is, when you pay an employee their wage and then garnish it (take away from it) for any reason, you
    have to account for it (GAAP). The void occurs, because most people don't have a freakin' clue what this is or what power they have.
    In actuality, a company can be sued for NOT providing either a paper check and/or direct deposit (very inexpensive to do BTW - which is why it's the standard)
    Here in the good ole USA _ we strive to squeeze as much out people as we can it seems - we're underpaid overall, don't get much in the way of vacations, and when it comes to getting KY'd by an employer that comes up with a pay scheme such as this - we rollover and want our belly rubbed

    Until ignorance, apathy and growth of balls occurs - large corporations and BIG business will ever continue to run rough-shod with stunts such as this

  409. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Shark · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure... Your example implies threat of force. It's in your self-interest to prevent it of course but using force (or threat of it) to take what you want from someone else is not okay with Rand at all to begin with. I guess it falls back to the thugs example I gave earlier, only this time they'd be keeping the money for themselves.

    It makes no difference if the thug wears a suit and hands you forms explaining how your assets are being commandeered or if he's holding a gun to your head or as per your example a pitchfork: You cannot take property from someone by force, threat or fraud, it has to be a willing exchange.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  410. Teachers? There are some great ones, but... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Oh, you're talking about the backbone of the U>S>education system that has allowed American children to slip behind their Worldly peers in nearly all measurable categories. Ask yourself this: Do the unions make it more difficult to get rid of someone not doing their job?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  411. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Well, it's your society's threat of force that keeps squatters from moving onto fallow land, gives you free access to interstate trade, and basically underlines all contract law and property ownership.

    I for one am grateful.

  412. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

    We have "food desert light" in Cleveland, Ohio and it is what most people in the city experience. Many have known nothing better. Things are fine in the relatively better neighborhoods (maybe 10-15% of the city proper) and there are excellent urban and farmers' markets in some of these, such as the famous West Side Market. The poorest live in places where the only accessible "food" is a corner bodega which mostly sells booze and lottery tickets, and where venturing far enough from home to catch a bus or train is very dangerous. But for the 80% who are neither destitute, nor wealthy by Cleveland standards, the typical "shopping experience" is a supermarket that is poorly lit, poorly cleaned, and offers mostly the same choices as the corner bodega, just more of them. Lots of off-brand, frozen, highly processed junk of every conceivable kind, but VERY few fruits and vegetables, very poor selection, none of them fresh, most barely edible, and at prices at least double or triple what I pay in my lower-middle-class suburb for vastly higher quality of the same thing. People who drive do of course have access to the much better stores in the suburbs, but many within the inner city do not drive, and are limited to the "selection" at the local Sav-a-Lot. It is not a true food desert, but it probably is representative of many of the less prosperous places in the U.S., which probably explains a lot of why we are among the sickest and fattest people in the developed world in spite of also being among the poorest at the median (not the average), by any meaningful measure of true wealth or human development.

  413. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consultants are usually paid weekly but most employees I know are paid bi-weekly. My company pays us twice a month at 2 set dates.

  414. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is one of the best comments I've ever heard on this forum. Making wise choices, because you have acquired wisdom. If I was going to vote, I'd vote that as the comment of the decade on slash-dot.

  415. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by RocRizzo · · Score: 1

    So tell me, if we all have to "claw our way up to the upper echelons of society" and "need to pay our fair share," how did people like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, "Panama" John McCain, and Mitt Romney claw their way up to the top, and what fair share have they paid? I think that these debit cards are crap, and that people should once again have the option to be paid cash, or given the time off to go to the issuing bank, and cash their payroll check. Things used to work well this way. The only thing that is different today, is that there are too many greedy bass turds any more, who want EVERYTHING for themselves, and don't want to contribute to the common good of society after they have "paid their dues," and "clawed their way" up to the top. Too many people these days are saying, "I got mine, to hell with everyone else." This will not only kill us all, but make many of us suffer.

  416. Your state has fallen to ALEC, fix that first. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It's not helping that ALEC is killing off any ability for a decent one to form given that it rammed through a law that was designed to avoid an Ohio-style referendum failure.

    So much for their confidence in We The People.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  417. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

    My only statement is that the weak need to remember it's a choice for the strong to help them, not a right.

    So you're a social darwinist. So I guess you'd be OK with the poor ganging up on the rich in huge numbers and tearing them to pieces. After all, it's the law of the jungle and there is strength in numbers.

    --
    "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
  418. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by meerling · · Score: 1

    My Credit Union is a $25 deposit to open, and a minimum of $5 in either checking or savings.
    The don't charge for transactions at Credit Union ATMs (Any credit union).
    Actually they don't charge for ATM at all, but they have no control over what the ATMs owner might charge if it's a bank instead of a Credit Union.
    I also get one counter check / money order per month no fee. (Yeah, it's just one, and that's all I've needed, so I don't know what it costs for more.)

    Heck, right now they are doing a membership drive, and are paying for referrals that open accounts. :)

  419. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is being done for illegals, not legals.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  420. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I'd agree some with that. Some. It still doesn't make it right though: You should try to teach rationality to everyone, and at some point people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and face the consequences of that. Otherwise you sit around all day giving free rides to idiots ( who have no encouragement to change), and making the responsible feel like fools for being responsible.

  421. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point, we become responsible for ourselves.

    Yes, but just you try and explain that to a Liberal and see how well it goes over. Of course, this actually suits the Liberals just fine because they prefer are large body of voting legal adults who behave like children and need their social betters to take care of them and do their thinking for them because they, the Liberals, know what's best for them and you too. So away with you and your conservative ideas of hard work and personal responsibility, they have no place in Liberal America.

  422. Re: Weekly/Monthly Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop talking like everyone shares your privileges.

    Maybe supercook.com has recipes that call for Ho-Hos, Ding-Dongs and Mountain Dew?