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."

150 of 1,103 comments (clear)

  1. 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: 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

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

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

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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
    19. 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".

    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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.

    25. 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

    26. 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?

    27. 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."

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.
    31. 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"
    32. 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.

    33. 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.
    34. 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.

    35. 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..)
    36. 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.
    37. 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.
    38. 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.

    39. 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.

    40. 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?
    41. 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.
    42. 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.

    43. 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.

    44. 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
  2. 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: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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  8. 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 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.
    2. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  13. 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?
  14. There are already lawsuits over this practice by Br00se · · Score: 5, Informative
  15. 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
  16. 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

  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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 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/
  20. 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 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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
  25. 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.

  26. 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 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~
  27. 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.

  28. 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!
  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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"
  41. 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
  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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
  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

    If you don't have a bank account... doesn't cashing a check cost money too?

  56. 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
  57. 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.

  58. Re:Weekly/Monthly Salary by shentino · · Score: 2

    Being able to choose how gently you get screwed is hardly a choice.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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".'
  62. 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".'
  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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 :)

  69. 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.

  70. 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 :/

  71. 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").
  72. 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".
  73. 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...
  74. 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.

  75. 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.
  76. 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."

  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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.