Today's "Let's See How We Can Fuck Over the American Worker" Thread

[CountDeMoney]

I don't understand why banks would want you to use a savings account for purchase transactions-- it kind of goes against the purpose of having savings accounts.

Fees make Yi squee.

[Neil]

I don't understand why banks would want you to use a savings account for purchase transactions-- it kind of goes against the purpose of having savings accounts.

Better yet, why not just have a bank account?  Why differentiate at all?

[crazy canuck]

It seems the problem is that the default are these pay card thingies which require an emploee to opt out and the article suggests there are some companies that dont offer alternatives at all.

Here the default is reversed.  Wages must be paid by cheque unless the employee agrees to some alternative form of payment - usually direct deposit.  I havent encountered these sorts of pay card schemes.  If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that they would be illegal in this jurisdiction because it is passing on the banking costs from the employer to the employee.

[Berkut]

I think the problem is more a matter of shitty journalism and lack of reading comprehension.

[derspiess]

I don't understand why banks would want you to use a savings account for purchase transactions-- it kind of goes against the purpose of having savings accounts.

Better yet, why not just have a bank account?  Why differentiate at all?

From the consumer perspective in these days of .75% interest on Savings accounts, you have a point.  When interest rates go back up, there will be more of a reason to have Savings accounts.

[crazy canuck]

I think the problem is more a matter of shitty journalism and lack of reading comprehension.

Could be but I am not sure why you might think that.  The article states:

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

It goes on to say that for many companies these pay card things are becoming the default method of payment.

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand why banks would want you to use a savings account for purchase transactions-- it kind of goes against the purpose of having savings accounts.

Better yet, why not just have a bank account?  Why differentiate at all?

Because different kinds of accounts have different fee structures for things like writing cheques, withdrawls etc.

[garbon]

I think the problem is more a matter of shitty journalism and lack of reading comprehension.

Could be but I am not sure why you might think that.  The article states:

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

It goes on to say that for many companies these pay card things are becoming the default method of payment.

It then says this:

Problems arise, though, when employers mandate the use of prepaid cards. In 25 states, employers are allowed to forgo paper checks and offer direct deposit or payroll cards; in the remaining states, regulations are less clear and employers are taking a risk by not offering a paper-check option, too, according to research by Madeline K. Aufseeser, an analyst at Aite. It is unclear how many employers offer payroll cards.

So half the states don't allow them to forgo paper checks and it looks like employers can be in trouble for payroll card only policies, and they don't actually have any sense of how many employers offer payroll cards period...

[Maximus]

That's confusing. There's a City National Bank that opened up near my work in Manhattan. Apparently though, there are two banks called City National Bank - one based in LA and one based in Newark. Doesn't seem ideal for customers.

Well there can't be that many city nations out there.

[crazy canuck]

So half the states don't allow them to forgo paper checks and it looks like employers can be in trouble for payroll card only policies, and they don't actually have any sense of how many employers offer payroll cards period...

Ok, so in 50% of your States employees are getting screwed and in the remaining 50% employers may be skirting the law to screw their employees.

Still not sure what point you are trying to make?

From a policy perspective, what is the justification for allowing any employer to transfer the cost of paying their employees onto the employees?

[Maximus]

I just watched that Ayn Rand movie, the second part.
Horrible movie, but a great story. Mindblowing.
I gave it 5 stars in Netflix.

Dude, saying anything positive at all about Rand or any aspect of her work is like praising Hitler around here.  Prepare to be flamed.

More like praising Stephenie Meyer

[Berkut]

I think the problem is more a matter of shitty journalism and lack of reading comprehension.

Could be but I am not sure why you might think that.  The article states:

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

It goes on to say that for many companies these pay card things are becoming the default method of payment.

Hence the comment about shitty journalism.

Note the article says things like "Many companies no longer offer traidtional methods like direct deposit or paper checks". It "suggests" that paycards are sometimes the only option, or default. Some employees claim...

Notice what it does not say or cite anywhere (and hence the comment about reading comprehension)?

That there is a single company anywhere in America where the employees actually have no choice but to accept paycards with high fees.

As far as actual facts stated, there is not one single example.

[Admiral Yi]

There is one example given: the McDonalds in Dallas, PA.

[Berkut]

There is one example given: the McDonalds in Dallas, PA.

Yep, your right.

So there is one example in the country we know of that forces employees to take a debit card.

And a quick google search reveals...that they don't do it anymore after pressure from employees.

Holy shit, the system works.

[crazy canuck]

A quick internet search shows that payroll cards are an issue.

Apparently there is some Federal regulation that requires that there be an alternative form of payment available to employees.  But the applicable law seems to be a patchwork of different regulations across the US depending upon which state you live in. Here is an interesting presentation I found from the employer's pespective.

Page 19 is where the regulatory discussion starts.

http://av.conferencearchives.com/pdfs/100402/365.pdf

It is interesting that in some states, like Colorado and Delaware, employers can mandate the use of pay cards - which seems to run contrary to the Federal position but that is likely a situation where if there is a legislative void the Fed rule applies and where the State legislates, then those rules apply - or something like that - I am just going off the presentation.  JR or someone else can fill us in on how that works.

But the main point is, that in some states, it appears that employees can be forced to use these things.

So back to the policy argument. Why should employers be permitted to download their payroll costs onto their employees?