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."
Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?
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...
Most companies switched to direct deposit by now.
That is hilarious.
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.
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.
Some colleges have been doing that with student aid payments. Alamo Colleges in San Antonio started doing something similar.
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.
Congress should step in and outlaw or regulate this kind of thing.
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
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
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
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?
This one makes the point well.
http://consumerist.com/2013/06/17/ex-mcdonalds-employee-sues-because-she-doesnt-want-her-paycheck-on-a-prepaid-debit-card/
I owe my soul to the company store
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.
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.
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?
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"
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) 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
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.
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.
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!
Leftist pap spewed by Slashtardism
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.
....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.
<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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.. 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 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
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Ron Paul!
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
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.
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).
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.
...I owe my soul to the company store.
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.
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
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.
Are those cards considered legal tender? If not, how it is acceptable to be paid with it?
bickerdyke
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
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.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can''t go. I owe my soul to the company store.
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.
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.
I wonder if the CEO gets paid in prepaid cards
Or is that inconvenience reserved only for the wage-slaves?
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? :-)
The union at Hostess retaliated against management because they were diverting money away from the employee pension fund.
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.
Of course, I'm not in the USA.
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!
for capitol controls, go look it up nerds.
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.
Oh, very few of those evil taxes... just fees for everything instead.
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
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.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
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.
I think I would have to go to court over this one.
And bill the employer for future fees.
Can someone say class action?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
I was wondering when they'd get around to Universal Access fees.
Use the banking system.. pay up.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I'll have to ask my accountant. Really. First time I ever saw it. w00t!
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
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
I'm Mexican, In my last job my employer (big consultancy firm) gave a normal debit card with no minimum balance and they took care of everything, after no longer using it for 6 months the bank sent me and email saying they were very sorry but they had to cancel my account because it didn't show any movement (or balance) for half a year, none of this had any cost for me. My current employer (University) pays me through direct deposit, I use a basic debit account that pays very little interest and requires no minimum balance (all banks are required by law to have such a product), I had to setup the card for my self but it was very straight forward and easy. I'm amazed that in the U.S. employers use this kind of gimmick to save money. Of course Payroll processing and paying generates overhead costs (and banks never do anything for free) but I believe it is always taken for granted that the employers are responsible for those, reading what commentators from Europe say apparently this is also a common expectation overseas, specially when developing economies also behave this way.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
But this is f'd up big time. Credit card companies are just trying to rake one over everyone, to recoup from the hammer that was dropped on them the last time they tried to screw the consumer. Keep it up, and more people are just going to say screw it, cash it all out, and keep it in their house in a box and use their own home as a "bank".
This is the 21st century version of company scrip. You dig 16 tons, what do you get? Another day older and deper in debt.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
$.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.
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
never had a chance of staying on track
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?
Because employer can avoid paying employee insurance, contributions to govt.
Casteism
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
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
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.