QuoteAs Pay Cards Replace Paychecks, Bank Fees Hurt Workers
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
New York Times
Published: June 30, 2013
A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.'s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.
Devonte Yates, 21, who earns $7.25 an hour working a drive-through station at a McDonald's in Milwaukee, says he spends $40 to $50 a month on fees associated with his JPMorgan Chase payroll card.
"It's pretty bad," he said. "There's a fee for literally everything you do."
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.
At companies where there is a choice, it is often more in theory than in practice, according to interviews with employees, state regulators and consumer advocates. Employees say they are often automatically enrolled in the payroll card programs and confronted with a pile of paperwork if they want to opt out.
"We hear virtually every week from employees who never knew there were other options, and employers certainly don't disabuse workers of that idea," said Deyanira Del Rio, an associate director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which works with community groups in New York.
Taco Bell, Walgreen and Walmart are among the dozens of well-known companies that offer prepaid cards to their workers; the cards are particularly popular with retailers and restaurants. And they are quickly gaining momentum. In 2012, $34 billion was loaded onto 4.6 million active payroll cards, according to the research firm Aite Group. Aite said it expected that to reach $68.9 billion and 10.8 million cards by 2017.
Companies and card issuers, which include Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, say the cards are cheaper and more efficient than checks — a calculator on Visa's Web site estimates that a company with 500 workers could save $21,000 a year by switching from checks to payroll cards. On its Web site, Citigroup trumpets how the cards "guarantee pay on time to all employees."
The largest issuer of payroll cards is NetSpend, based in Austin, Tex. Chuck Harris, the company's president, says it attracts companies by offering convenience to employees and cost savings to employers.
"We built a product that an employer can fairly represent to their employees as having real benefits to them," he said.
Sometimes, though, the incentives for employers to steer workers toward the cards are more explicit. In the case of the New York City Housing Authority, it stands to receive a dollar for every employee it signs up to Citibank's payroll cards, according to a contract reviewed by The New York Times. (Sheila Stainback, a spokeswoman for the agency, noted that it had an annual budget of $3 billion and that roughly 430 employees had signed up for the card.)
Another McDonald's worker, Natalie Gunshannon, 27, says the owners of the franchise that she worked for in Dallas, Pa., refused to deposit her pay directly into her checking account at a local credit union, which lets its customers use its A.T.M.'s free. Instead, Ms. Gunshannon said, she was forced to use a payroll card issued by JPMorgan Chase. She has since quit her job at the drive-through window and is suing the franchise owners.
"I know I deserve to get fairly paid for my work," she said.
The franchise owners, Albert and Carol Mueller, said in a statement that they comply with all employment, pay and work laws, and try to provide a positive experience for employees. McDonald's itself, noting that it is not named in the suit, says it lets franchisees determine employment and pay policies.
Some employers and card issuers contend that the payroll cards are useful for low-wage workers who do not have bank accounts. They also say that the fees on the cards are usually lower than those associated with check-cashing services, which are often the only other option for people who do not have bank accounts.
"An unbanked employee is likely to be subject to a check-cashing fee when they try to cash a payroll check," said Nina Das, a Citigroup spokeswoman. She said that "someone cashing a payroll check for $500 would end up paying $15 at a 3 percent check-cashing fee."
This population — people who tend to use few, if any, bank services, is swelling. About 10 million households in the United States do not use a bank at all, up from nine million four years ago, according to estimates from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. And 24 million households that do have a bank account still use expensive financial services like prepaid cards, the agency said.
For banks, looking to recoup billions of dollars in lost income from a spate of recent limits on debit and credit card fees, deals to issue payroll cards can be lucrative — the products were largely untouched by recent financial regulations. As a result, some of the nation's largest banks are expanding into the business, banking analysts say.
The lack of regulation in the payroll card market, while alluring for some of the issuers, can potentially leave cardholders swimming in fees. Take the example of inactivity fees that penalize customers for infrequently using their cards. The Federal Reserve has banned such fees for credit and debit cards, but no protections exist on prepaid cards. Cards used by more than two dozen major retailers have inactivity fees of $7 or more, according to a review of agreements.
Some employees can also be hit with $25 overdraft fees, called "balance protection," on some of the prepaid cards. Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, banks with more than $10 billion in assets are barred from levying overdraft fees on customers' checking accounts.
Many fees are virtually impossible to dodge, some employees say. A Victoria Secret's employee, Bintou Kamara, for example, said it cost her $1.50 just to transfer money from her Citi payroll card to her checking account.
"I just make such little money that it seems like a lot to pay just to get access to it," said Ms. Kamara, 23, who works as a sales clerk in New York.
Naoki Fuji, a policy associate at Retail Action Project, an advocacy organization for retail workers, said, "These are people who can least afford to fork over huge fees."
On some of its payroll cards, NetSpend charges $2.25 for out-of-network A.T.M. withdrawals, 50 cents for balance inquiries via a representative, 50 cents for a purchase using the card, $5 for statement reprints, $10 to close an account, $25 for a balance-protection program and $7.50 after 60 days of inactivity, according to an April presentation by the company reviewed by The Times.
Patrick Brown, NetSpend's senior vice president, said the company was "passionate that consumers can access their wages free of charge," providing an A.T.M. navigator to help employees find fee-free cash machines.
Some large retailers, like Home Depot, Walmart, Walgreen and Limited Brands, the parent company of Victoria's Secret, say they let employees choose whether they will receive their wages through direct deposit or a prepaid card, along with checks in some cases.
In other cases, employees say that while they do get some free cash withdrawals at certain A.T.M.'s, it is difficult to find the right machines in their neighborhoods. Ms. Das of Citigroup said that its "payroll card holders have access to over 27,000 A.T.M.'s across the country."
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.
For low-wage employees, the fees can lead to unusual solutions.
Krystal McLemore, 22, makes $7.65 an hour at a Taco Bell in St. Louis. She said she was told to sign up for a payroll card. (Taco Bell says it "offers direct deposit and a voluntary option of payroll cards as an added convenience" for employees.) But she became tired of being charged $1.75, in addition to the A.T.M.'s fees, to withdraw cash. After a tip from a co-worker, Ms. McLemore realized she could reduce her charges if she took out all her wages once a month. Now, supplied with one of the most modern banking products, Ms. McLemore has a decidedly old-fashioned way of handling her wages: they are stacked in a shoe box in her closet in $10s and $20s.
"It costs too much to get my money," she said.
Today's "Let's call boneheads who are too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit victims of the greatest crime since slavery" thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:02:23 PM
Today's "Let's call boneheads who are too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit victims of the greatest crime since slavery" thread.
Didn't think you were in the Nanny State camp, what with telling people how and what to do with their money. That's so not Romnyi of you.
This article seems a little ridiculous...and overly vague on how many people are actually in systems (with their employers) where they can only get their money on a card that may be for a bank with few branches in their area.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:08:00 PM
Didn't think you were in the Nanny State camp, what with telling people how and what to do with their money. That's so not Romnyi of you.
:lmfao:
WTF? Letting people make their own choices and live with the repercussions is Nanny State? A Nanny Stater would ban payroll cards because stupid people use them stupidly.
I love reporting like this:
QuoteProblems 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.
They state "empoyers mandate..." then go on the say that they...cannot mandate their use. Awesome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:11:17 PM
WTF? Letting people make their own choices and live with the repercussions is Nanny State? A Nanny Stater would ban payroll cards because stupid people use them stupidly.
I know you're a big fan of the banking industry and squeal with delight when they assbang lower income earners with fees when they can't maintain their minimum balance requirement, but I didn't think you'd go so far as to think banking is as mandatory to the working poor as forcing them to pay for Photo IDs to vote.
Shame on you. Shame, shame. :(
Of all the schticks in all the world you had to pick Communist.
Save it, Bestiality Boy. Leviticus is a much older schtick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:19:28 PM
I know you're a big fan of the banking industry and squeal with delight when they assbang lower income earners with fees when they can't maintain their minimum balance requirement, but I didn't think you'd go so far as to think banking is as mandatory to the working poor as forcing them to pay for Photo IDs to vote.
Shame on you. Shame, shame. :(
What happened to our discussion about the Nanny State? I was enjoying that a lot, but it seems to don't want to talk about that any more. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:26:07 PM
What happened to our discussion about the Nanny State? I was enjoying that a lot, but it seems to don't want to talk about that any more. :lol:
Nanny State away, baby. I'm chock full of heady Shumer goodness today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:26:51 PM
Nanny State away, baby. I'm chock full of heady Shumer goodness today.
Ball's in your court. You called me a Nanny Stater for subscribing to a position that's the exact opposite of Nanny Statism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:30:17 PM
Ball's in your court. You called me a Nanny Stater for subscribing to a position that's the exact opposite of Nanny Statism.
Perhaps Nanny Stater was too harsh, despite telling people what they should do with their money. Hypocrite and full of shit is probably more appropriate.
Big Brother Corp and Big Brother Government aren't the same thing. :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:42:20 PM
Perhaps Nanny Stater was too harsh, despite telling people what they should do with their money. Hypocrite and full of shit is probably more appropriate.
:lol: I'm not telling anyone what to do with their money. If some idiot wants to get a pay card instead of writing down two numbers to set up direct deposit, then wants to print out five statements a month and withdraw $10 a time from an ATM that charges a fee because the one that doesn't charge a fee is "not convenient," I say more power to him. Knock yourself out.
You're the one that's full to the brim with shit. You can't just say 1 + 1 = 3 then explode in super-retarded indignation when you get called on it. Or I suppose you can, but there are too many people that already know what 1 plus 1 equals for that con to work.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2013, 06:14:53 PM
I love reporting like this:
QuoteProblems 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.
They state "empoyers mandate..." then go on the say that they...cannot mandate their use. Awesome.
I've had direct deposit since the Army stopped the payroll officer shit in '84 or '85. I thought that was the standard unless you were working "under the table". Strange.
Granted I only ever had one moonlight job while in the Army. Since retiring in 2004 Ive work at only three places, including the current job IIRC. Direct deposit was the only option.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 07:06:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2013, 06:14:53 PM
I love reporting like this:
QuoteProblems 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.
They state "empoyers mandate..." then go on the say that they...cannot mandate their use. Awesome.
I've had direct deposit since the Army stopped the payroll officer shit in '84 or '85. I thought that was the standard unless you were working "under the table". Strange.
I went to the bank with a friend after work, she's a temp, and I was surprised by the number of office worker looking types who appeared to be depositing paychecks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:56:39 PM
:lol: I'm not telling anyone what to do with their money. If some idiot wants to get a pay card instead of writing down two numbers to set up direct deposit, then wants to print out five statements a month and withdraw $10 a time from an ATM that charges a fee because the one that doesn't charge a fee is "not convenient," I say more power to him. Knock yourself out.
Hey, you're the one that called them boneheads too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit. But not all employers are giving them the option to do so; debit cards only. Not all of these employers allow direct deposit into the bank of the employee's choice, as referenced by employee with the credit union account. But no, they're too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit, which in your universe they're required to have. That makes you telling them what to do with their money.
QuoteYou're the one that's full to the brim with shit.
Am not.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 07:06:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2013, 06:14:53 PM
I love reporting like this:
QuoteProblems 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.
They state "empoyers mandate..." then go on the say that they...cannot mandate their use. Awesome.
I've had direct deposit since the Army stopped the payroll officer shit in '84 or '85. I thought that was the standard unless you were working "under the table". Strange.
I went to the bank with a friend after work, she's a temp, and I was surprised by the number of office worker looking types who appeared to be depositing paychecks.
Wow.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 07:06:43 PM
I've had direct deposit since the Army stopped the payroll officer shit in '84 or '85. I thought that was the standard unless you were working "under the table". Strange.
Granted I only ever had one moonlight job while in the Army. Since retiring in 2004 Ive work at only three places, including the current job IIRC. Direct deposit was the only option.
I've noticed in my experience with trolling usajobs.gov that's been the SOP for most GS federal positions for quite some time.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 07:09:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
I went to the bank with a friend after work, she's a temp, and I was surprised by the number of office worker looking types who appeared to be depositing paychecks.
Wow.
Holy Not Everybody Else In The World Lives Like You, Batman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:14:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 07:09:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:08:36 PM
I went to the bank with a friend after work, she's a temp, and I was surprised by the number of office worker looking types who appeared to be depositing paychecks.
Wow.
Holy Not Everybody Else In The World Lives Like You, Batman.
I'm not sure why an office worker (particularly one in NYC) would forego direct deposit.../perhaps even a bank account as most banks are going to charge a checking account if you don't have direct deposit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:09:08 PM
Hey, you're the one that called them boneheads too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit. But not all employers are giving them the option to do so; debit cards only. Not all of these employers allow direct deposit into the bank of the employee's choice, as referenced by employee with the credit union account. But no, they're too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit, which in your universe they're required to have. That makes you telling them what to do with their money.
Natalie Gunshannon of Dallas PA had what looks to be a raw deal and was right to walk away from that job. Though in a perplexing omission by the otherwise stalwart authors of this article the withdrawal fee for that particular card was not mentioned.
Now how exactly am I telling her what to do with her money?
QuoteAm not.
Absolutely.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:16:14 PM
I'm not sure why an office worker (particularly one in NYC) would forego direct deposit.../perhaps even a bank account as most banks are going to charge a checking account if you don't have direct deposit.
Not all employers offers direct deposit alternatives. Hell, years ago, a massive payroll service like ADP didn't even offer it at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:21:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:16:14 PM
I'm not sure why an office worker (particularly one in NYC) would forego direct deposit.../perhaps even a bank account as most banks are going to charge a checking account if you don't have direct deposit.
Not all employers offers direct deposit alternatives. Hell, years ago, a massive payroll service like ADP didn't even offer it at all.
Yes I bet that's what accounts for it, in Manhattan offices in 2013. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 07:16:38 PM
Now how exactly am I telling her what to do with her money?
Nice dodge, but it's not going to work. Everybody has to have bank accounts, or they're boneheads.
QuoteAbsolutely.
Not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:30:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 07:16:38 PM
Now how exactly am I telling her what to do with her money?
Nice dodge, but it's not going to work. Everybody has to have bank accounts, or they're boneheads.
Generally, that's probably true.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:30:30 PM
Nice dodge, but it's not going to work. Everybody has to have bank accounts, or they're boneheads.
As I said, people are totally free to opt for pay cards and be boneheads. Being a bonehead is a God-given right.
QuoteNot.
Too.
The only use case where the gripe is valid is (only shortly mentioned once) when the payroll card is forced and direct deposit is not an option. The article doesn't give any actual statistics on how frequently that occurs, and it doesn't seem like that's a common way for an employer to handle payroll.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:27:31 PM
Yes I bet that's what accounts for it, in Manhattan offices in 2013. :rolleyes:
Really, you know the ins-and-outs of all the payroll departments for all of Manhattan? You know precisely which individuals are paid on a per diem or temporary schedule, which could preclude direct deposit, or those individuals that need to make multiple transactions or deposits off their net pay that day? Or which companies are so small the boss' wife is the one printing out the checks on the hand-fed laser printer that morning?
Direct deposit is not a uniform practice across all employers, and not all employees are full-timers. Even in Center of the Universe Manhattan.
This sort of thing doesn't seem right. More regulation would probably help, but your political system is so fucked that you'd probably nd up accidentally banning fire or something.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 30, 2013, 07:38:06 PM
The only use case where the gripe is valid is (only shortly mentioned once) when the payroll card is forced and direct deposit is not an option. The article doesn't give any actual statistics on how frequently that occurs, and it doesn't seem like that's a common way for an employer to handle payroll.
Don't let that stop a good freak out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:42:11 PM
Even in Center of the Universe Manhattan.
I don't think Manhattan is the center of the universe, just that I don't think most offices here don't offer direct deposit to their non-temps.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:32:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:30:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 07:16:38 PM
Now how exactly am I telling her what to do with her money?
Nice dodge, but it's not going to work. Everybody has to have bank accounts, or they're boneheads.
Generally, that's probably true.
Uh, yeah. Pretty much.
It's possible that some of them aren't boneheads. They could be criminals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:27:31 PM
Yes I bet that's what accounts for it, in Manhattan offices in 2013. :rolleyes:
Really, you know the ins-and-outs of all the payroll departments for all of Manhattan? You know precisely which individuals are paid on a per diem or temporary schedule, which could preclude direct deposit, or those individuals that need to make multiple transactions or deposits off their net pay that day? Or which companies are so small the boss' wife is the one printing out the checks on the hand-fed laser printer that morning?
Direct deposit is not a uniform practice across all employers, and not all employees are full-timers. Even in Center of the Universe Manhattan.
News to me that you have to be full time to use direct deposit, and I guess to my employer too, since I've been working PT for the past 4 years yet have direct deposit.
FWIW, when I worked for BK, the franchise I worked for didn't offer either direct deposit or a paycard--it was paper paychecks only. Some of the employees there would have preferred a paycard, because they didn't have a bank account, and they got charged a fee by the banks to cash the paycheck (though the bank the paychecks were drawn on didn't charge a fee for cashing them, and they had a lot of locations). So the whole paycheck/direct deposit/paycard think can cut a lot of different ways, and different people will prefer different options. Though I agree that it would be nice if all employers actually offered all the possible options (heck, even including cash disbursement), I don't think it's the job of the government to mandate niceness.
Quote from: Admiral YiWTF? Letting people make their own choices and live with the repercussions is Nanny State? A Nanny Stater would ban payroll cards because stupid people use them stupidly.
Keep in mind that, apparantly, to the modern American liberal, someone who pays their medical bills out of their own pocket instead of relying on someone else to pay for them is a freeloader. Given that kind of "logic" it sort of follows that allowing people to make their own choices is Nanny-Stateism.
Almost classic Orwellian double-speak.
What sort of people pay their own medical bills? I suppose you could have the people who never get sick and rarely visit a doctor, who are just lucky. Even then, they'll eventually get old. Then you get the rich, but even then it makes more financial sense to get insurance, so the pool of people who are both rich and stupid must be fairly small.
Quote from: dps on July 01, 2013, 08:08:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:27:31 PM
Yes I bet that's what accounts for it, in Manhattan offices in 2013. :rolleyes:
Really, you know the ins-and-outs of all the payroll departments for all of Manhattan? You know precisely which individuals are paid on a per diem or temporary schedule, which could preclude direct deposit, or those individuals that need to make multiple transactions or deposits off their net pay that day? Or which companies are so small the boss' wife is the one printing out the checks on the hand-fed laser printer that morning?
Direct deposit is not a uniform practice across all employers, and not all employees are full-timers. Even in Center of the Universe Manhattan.
News to me that you have to be full time to use direct deposit, and I guess to my employer too, since I've been working PT for the past 4 years yet have direct deposit.
Probably news to you as well that I qualified my statement with the word "could".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
News to me that you have to be full time to use direct deposit, and I guess to my employer too, since I've been working PT for the past 4 years yet have direct deposit.
Probably news to you as well that I qualified my statement with the word "could".
[/quote]
Ah, crap, I missed that. :Embarrass:
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 07:32:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 07:30:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 07:16:38 PM
Now how exactly am I telling her what to do with her money?
Nice dodge, but it's not going to work. Everybody has to have bank accounts, or they're boneheads.
Generally, that's probably true.
Uh, yeah. Pretty much.
You guys realize that most banks require a credit check before they'll let you open an account, right? So, the working poor - those most likely with the worst credit - may not be able to open an account. It's not a question of choice for them.
Also, my son was required to get one of those cards when he worked at a restaurant, despite having a bank account and requesting direct deposit. He was a busser, so he didn't get cash tips - instead the weekly tips were loaded onto the card, too. The servers loved the cards because they were generally paid in cash tips, and the card was basically worthless for them. The bussers, however (the lowest paid in the place), were charged fees lots of fun fees to get access to their accounts.
I thought it was pretty shitty, but didn't realize it was so wide-spread. I'm with Seedy on this one. Given as a choice is one thing, but requiring it - and requiring a fee to withdraw the money - is plain shitty.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 08:36:20 AM
You guys realize that most banks require a credit check before they'll let you open an account, right?
:unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 08:41:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 08:36:20 AM
You guys realize that most banks require a credit check before they'll let you open an account, right?
:unsure:
And if you're on the TeleChek shitlist, no account, baby. Ran into that problem in my younger days. Had a bank turn down a checking account application, based on my relationship with a previous bank.
No, Meri. I did not realize that. Probably because it's not true.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
No, Meri. I did not realize that. Probably because it's not true.
Cite - the Internet suggests that there is typically at least a soft credit check to open a bank account?
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
No, Meri. I did not realize that. Probably because it's not true.
You're wrong. I was turned down repeatedly for accounts shortly after my divorce due to credit issues. In fact, I was turned down by CitiBank for a
savings account due to "credit concerns."
There are banks that are considered "second chance" banks that will open a limited account for you if you have poor credit. However, a lot of stores won't allow you to use their debit cards or checks for purchases due to "credit concerns". Your only option is to withdraw cash or get money orders.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:28:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
No, Meri. I did not realize that. Probably because it's not true.
You're wrong. I was turned down repeatedly for accounts shortly after my divorce due to credit issues. In fact, I was turned down by CitiBank for a savings account due to "credit concerns."
There are banks that are considered "second chance" banks that will open a limited account for you if you have poor credit. However, a lot of stores won't allow you to use their debit cards or checks for purchases due to "credit concerns". Your only option is to withdraw cash or get money orders.
I'm not saying banks never do that. I'm just saying it's not true that "most banks" do it. Most banks I deal with don't even do a credit check before they issue a debit card.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
I'm not saying banks never do that. I'm just saying it's not true that "most banks" do it. Most banks I deal with don't even do a credit check before they issue a debit card.
Then you're lucky. Around here, that's not the case. EVERY bank does a credit check for EVERY account they open.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
I'm not saying banks never do that. I'm just saying it's not true that "most banks" do it. Most banks I deal with don't even do a credit check before they issue a debit card.
Then you're lucky. Around here, that's not the case. EVERY bank does a credit check for EVERY account they open.
derweiß only deals with Krugerands.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
I'm not saying banks never do that. I'm just saying it's not true that "most banks" do it. Most banks I deal with don't even do a credit check before they issue a debit card.
Then you're lucky. Around here, that's not the case. EVERY bank does a credit check for EVERY account they open.
FWIW, I meant "deal with" as in are my customers.
Hint: Go to a smaller, community-type bank or credit union. I'd say most of them don't like the expense and/or hassle of doing a credit check just to open an account. Some of them may disclose that they may do it, but in reality do not.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
I'm not saying banks never do that. I'm just saying it's not true that "most banks" do it. Most banks I deal with don't even do a credit check before they issue a debit card.
Then you're lucky. Around here, that's not the case. EVERY bank does a credit check for EVERY account they open.
FWIW, I meant "deal with" as in are my customers.
Hint: Go to a smaller, community-type bank or credit union. I'd say most of them don't like the expense and/or hassle of doing a credit check just to open an account. Some of them may disclose that they may do it, but in reality do not.
I don't know if they spread Meri's way, but Hunington bank is fairly decent.
I'm still a Chase man though. :)
Haven't annoyed me yet. Unlike 5/3rd, US Bank, and Wright Patt Credit Union.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:02:23 PM
Today's "Let's call boneheads who are too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit victims of the greatest crime since slavery" thread.
Didn't think you were in the Nanny State camp, what with telling people how and what to do with their money. That's so not Romnyi of you.
direct deposit.
also, if you have a checking account on a bank, that does not charge you for using the stupid card.
so this thread is an storm in a glass of water. nothing to see here.
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 10:49:47 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2013, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2013, 06:02:23 PM
Today's "Let's call boneheads who are too lazy or stupid to sign up for direct deposit victims of the greatest crime since slavery" thread.
Didn't think you were in the Nanny State camp, what with telling people how and what to do with their money. That's so not Romnyi of you.
direct deposit.
also, if you have a checking account on a bank, that does not charge you for using the stupid card.
so this thread is an storm in a glass of water. nothing to see here.
Yes it is clear that you didn't read anything in this thread. :D
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Hint: Go to a smaller, community-type bank or credit union. I'd say most of them don't like the expense and/or hassle of doing a credit check just to open an account. Some of them may disclose that they may do it, but in reality do not.
I have an account now, thanks, but I think you're missing the point.
The comment was that people without checking accounts are stoopid. My point was that getting a checking account is a privilege, not a right, and not a privilege given to many with credit issues, ie The Poors. So, for those, even if they have a choice between the payment card or direct deposit, they don't really have a choice.
In other words, banks are making money off of those least able to afford it.
*sniffs* Makes me proud to be an American. *sniffs*
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.
Banks are making money off people?
Teh horror!
They should have to carefully evaluate the income of their customers, compare it to their number of children and average cost of living for the location, and then determine on a sliding scale how much they are allowed to make off their customers.
This definitely needs more government intervention. They should make sure banks cannot make any money off of offering these cards, and instead people should simply only be allowed direct deposit, in order to protect them from choosing a different option that might actually be better for them.
This might be in the top ten of dumbest articles ever posted on Languish.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 11:03:22 AM
So, for those, even if they have a choice between the payment card or direct deposit, they don't really have a choice.
In other words, banks are making money off of those least able to afford it.
I know, wouldn't it be so much better for them if the completely optional cards that they do not have to choose simply were not available at all?
Then they would be forced to use direct deposit, which apparently is completely impossible for Poor People (although I was poor once and I always had a bank account...but never mind that), so they would be forced to what, work for free because there is no way to pay them?
Or would this then go back to paper checks...which they would likely have to pay a fee to cash? Or take to the issuing bank, which poor people may not have a car to be able to get to?
What is the superior alternative to this travesty of injustice Seedy has been so kind to bring to our awareness?
I'm not blaming the banks - except that I think that their relentless charges are obnoxious. I'm blaming the employers who don't give the employees other options, many of whom don't. Then, of course, there is the issue with those who can't get back accounts due to poor credit not having a choice even if the employers did give them one.
Personally, I think it's a shitty situation for those least able to afford it. *shrugs*
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 11:03:22 AM
The comment was that people without checking accounts are stoopid. My point was that getting a checking account is a privilege, not a right, and not a privilege given to many with credit issues, ie The Poors. So, for those, even if they have a choice between the payment card or direct deposit, they don't really have a choice.
Are you talking about people who just have bad credit, or people who have a history of writing bad checks, walking away from overdrawn accounts at other banks, etc.? I think you may be confusing credit checks with something else.
I think being poor is a shitty situation in general.
As someone who ran a business employee people at and around minimum wage, I am at a loss as to how someone would expect the business to fix the problem. It isn't under their control in any way that is reasonable.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
I think being poor is a shitty situation in general.
As someone who ran a business employee people at and around minimum wage, I am at a loss as to how someone would expect the business to fix the problem. It isn't under their control in any way that is reasonable.
Well if I had to pare down to the gist of the complaint in the article, it is that cost savings measures (i.e. these mandatory paycards) - businesses are now screwing over their employees who are already making so little. Presumably that is something under the businesses's control. However, as we'd already discussed the article doesn't say how prevalent that issue is and then goes onto say that employers only offering that one method could be in for trouble.
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 11:57:30 AM
Are you talking about people who just have bad credit, or people who have a history of writing bad checks, walking away from overdrawn accounts at other banks, etc.? I think you may be confusing credit checks with something else.
No... I'm talking about a credit check. I've never had a problem with writing bad checks (had never done so, in fact), but the divorce ruined my credit. I was turned down by multiple banks for accounts due to my credit report, not due to TeleChecks reports.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 12:08:19 PM
the divorce ruined my credit.
How'd that happen? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 12:08:19 PM
No... I'm talking about a credit check. I've never had a problem with writing bad checks (had never done so, in fact), but the divorce ruined my credit. I was turned down by multiple banks for accounts due to my credit report, not due to TeleChecks reports.
So, no bad bank history? Just bad credit? I know credit history checks do happen sometimes, but I think it's intended to check for any red flags like bad check writing, fraud, and bad accounts rather than the credit score itself since they're not really evaluating your creditworthiness.
I could get a checking account with a debit card at Citibank as a foreigner with no assets, very little income and no credit history without any undue hassle. :unsure: I didn't even have a SSN at that point.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 12:03:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
I think being poor is a shitty situation in general.
As someone who ran a business employee people at and around minimum wage, I am at a loss as to how someone would expect the business to fix the problem. It isn't under their control in any way that is reasonable.
Well if I had to pare down to the gist of the complaint in the article, it is that cost savings measures (i.e. these mandatory paycards) - businesses are now screwing over their employees who are already making so little.
I see that is the article's claim, but they don't even try toa ctually show how it is the case, and instead rely on the outrage of people like Seedy who are looking for something to be outraged about, so don't bother to actually read the article and notice that there isn't anything actually there.
You can't say that business are "screwing over" their employess by offering them MORE choice than they had before - worst case they simply don't accept the choice and hence are no worse off than they were before. The article did not provide a single example where businesses actually forced anyone to pay any fees at all, beyond those that they could have potentially faced under the "standard" terms of a paper check.
I just watched that Ayn Rand movie, the second part.
Horrible movie, but a great story. Mindblowing.
I gave it 5 stars in Netflix.
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 01:14:30 PM
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. :(
This credit check to open a checking account business is certainly news to me as well.
I like how her major female characters all desperately want for some man to dominate them. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 01:21:16 PM
I like how her major female characters all desperately want for some man to dominate them. :)
...which is quite ironic given her own personal life. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 01:21:16 PM
I like how her major female characters all desperately want for some man to dominate them. :)
I don't get it.
Why wouldn't a strong woman want a strong man next to her?
Why do you assume strong women prefer weak men?
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 01, 2013, 11:57:30 AM
Are you talking about people who just have bad credit, or people who have a history of writing bad checks, walking away from overdrawn accounts at other banks, etc.? I think you may be confusing credit checks with something else.
No... I'm talking about a credit check. I've never had a problem with writing bad checks (had never done so, in fact), but the divorce ruined my credit. I was turned down by multiple banks for accounts due to my credit report, not due to TeleChecks reports.
That has nothing to do with being poor though - it has to do with having bad credit.
Quote from: Caliga on July 01, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 12:08:19 PM
the divorce ruined my credit.
How'd that happen? :huh:
:huh:
It happens all the time, Caliga. It takes time to figure out who pays what, who gets what debt/credit, etc. At the time, I had no income and all of our debt was in joint accounts. He stopped paying the bills until "we" decided who was responsible for what (by which I mean the judge). Both of our credit was ruined.
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2013, 01:37:23 PM
That has nothing to do with being poor though - it has to do with having bad credit.
Sure, and who's most likely to have bad credit?
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 02:35:14 PM
Sure, and who's most likely to have bad credit?
People who don't take care of their credit.
Come on, ramp it up now. Got my popcorn & comfy chair ready.
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 01:21:16 PM
I like how her major female characters all desperately want for some man to dominate them. :)
I don't get it.
Why wouldn't a strong woman want a strong man next to her?
Why do you assume strong women prefer weak men?
I don't get it.
How do you extract that from my comment?
Poor credit probably skews poor as poors are more likely to be late on paying bills or making loan payments.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 02:35:14 PM
:huh:
It happens all the time, Caliga. It takes time to figure out who pays what, who gets what debt/credit, etc. At the time, I had no income and all of our debt was in joint accounts. He stopped paying the bills until "we" decided who was responsible for what (by which I mean the judge). Both of our credit was ruined.
Ok, I see.... interesting.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 12:03:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
I think being poor is a shitty situation in general.
As someone who ran a business employee people at and around minimum wage, I am at a loss as to how someone would expect the business to fix the problem. It isn't under their control in any way that is reasonable.
Well if I had to pare down to the gist of the complaint in the article, it is that cost savings measures (i.e. these mandatory paycards) - businesses are now screwing over their employees who are already making so little. Presumably that is something under the businesses's control. However, as we'd already discussed the article doesn't say how prevalent that issue is and then goes onto say that employers only offering that one method could be in for trouble.
The thing is, even if we take the article at face value, it's not really the employers screwing over their employees--it's the banks that own the ATMs that are charging the fees. Most likely, even if the employers were paying their employees with a paper check, the banks would charge those employees a fee to cash their checks.
And there's a way around the fees, anyhow. Most stores will give you cash back on a debit card purchase, so go to the store and buy something---even if it's just a pack of toilet paper or the like--pay with the paycard, and get cash back.
Quote from: Admiral YiThis credit check to open a checking account business is certainly news to me as well.
I've heard of it, but the only context in which I'd heard of it before was in commercials in which banks were advertising that they'd open up a checking account for you with no credit check. I've never had a bank run one on me, nor had I actually heard of it happening to anyone before Meri said it happened to her.
Chequing account? When am I going to need to write a cheque in the 21st century?
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2013, 07:47:22 AM
Chequing account? When am I going to need to write a cheque in the 21st century?
My landlord will only take checks. Also, I don't think you can have a debit card on a savings account, can you?
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 07:50:24 AM
My landlord will only take checks.
My COBRA provider only accepts checks as well.
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2013, 02:58:49 AM
And there's a way around the fees, anyhow. Most stores will give you cash back on a debit card purchase, so go to the store and buy something---even if it's just a pack of toilet paper or the like--pay with the paycard, and get cash back.
Some stores are starting to surcharge for cash back transactions.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:55:16 AM
Some stores are starting to surcharge for cash back transactions.
If it's a debit charge, they do.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 07:50:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2013, 07:47:22 AM
Chequing account? When am I going to need to write a cheque in the 21st century?
My landlord will only take checks. Also, I don't think you can have a debit card on a savings account, can you?
I do. But then again, it's different here, in that the banks ganged up to create the system, rather than using Visa. I have no idea what's possible in the US.
Federal regs state that you cannot have a debit card linked to a savings account unless you have a checking account as the primary account-- and then you can only use the savings account for ATM transactions.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 07:57:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:55:16 AM
Some stores are starting to surcharge for cash back transactions.
If it's a debit charge, they do.
Well, you can't do cash back with the "credit" option at the terminal. Unless the merchant is stupid.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
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?
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.
I think the problem is more a matter of shitty journalism and lack of reading comprehension.
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2013, 10:04:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 10:58:49 AM
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:
QuoteMany 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.
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2013, 10:04:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 08:29:38 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 10:58:49 AM
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:
QuoteMany 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:
QuoteProblems 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...
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 11:09:23 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 11:05:12 AM
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?
Quote from: Caliga on July 01, 2013, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 01:14:30 PM
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
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 10:58:49 AM
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:
QuoteMany 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.
There is one example given: the McDonalds in Dallas, PA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 11:19:29 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:38:24 AM
A quick internet search shows that payroll cards are an issue.
:lmfao:
Berkut 9808 &CC 9809 look at your post counts. :D
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:38:24 AM
A quick internet search shows that payroll cards are an issue.
:lmfao:
That's some quality journalism there. He could write for the NYT!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 11:05:12 AM
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?
Dude, businesses are
always going to transfer any costs of doing business to their employees or customers: "Well, since the government has now mandated that we go to the extra expense of offering printed paychecks, we'll have to freeze everybody's pay for the next 2 years. Oh, and all of our merchandise is going to go up in price 7.5% across the board". Obviously, that's exaggerated--almost no one is ever THAT blatant about it--buts it's what generally happens.
I don't see how a pay card transfers payroll costs to the employee. With both pay cards and direct deposit the employer has to pay a fee to the processor. With both the employer has to calculate federal, state and local withholding and transfer the funds. With both the employer has to calculate pension/401k/health insurance contributions and forward the amounts.
My employer offers direct deposit and pay card and strongly discourages people from selecting the pay card. I know only one person who has ever taken the pay card option, and he is pretty much a drunkard and a vagabond (he worked a couple projects and disappeared). It's theoretically possible that he is getting blitzed with user fees, but he never mentioned them to me.
I think it would stink if I had a job that only offered a pay card and in order to get any cash off the card I had no choice but to pay a user fee. But until I see some documentation to that effect, I'm going to believe it's only a theoretical possibility. It doesn't help the cause that the NYT reporters used so much obvious misdirection to create the impression that that is widespread.
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2013, 12:09:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 11:05:12 AM
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?
Dude, businesses are always going to transfer any costs of doing business to their employees or customers: "Well, since the government has now mandated that we go to the extra expense of offering printed paychecks, we'll have to freeze everybody's pay for the next 2 years. Oh, and all of our merchandise is going to go up in price 7.5% across the board". Obviously, that's exaggerated--almost no one is ever THAT blatant about it--buts it's what generally happens.
But at least in that situation the decision is transparent. You will be paid X. With Pay Cards, the costs are hidden and there is the potential that after all fees are paid the employee may be paid below statutory limits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 12:24:38 PM
I don't see how a pay card transfers payroll costs to the employee. With both pay cards and direct deposit the employer has to pay a fee to the processor.
The issue appears to be that the fees associated with accessing funds from a pay card can be greater than the fees deposited directly into a bank account.
Employers have an incentive to offer pay cards because the fees are lower - probably because of the fees the financial institution makes off of the paycards.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 12:28:23 PM
The issue appears to be that the fees associated with accessing funds from a pay card can be greater than the fees deposited directly into a bank account.
Didn't see that in the NYT article. All I saw was that some pay cards "can charge $1.75 for withdrawing money from
some ATMs." That's about what I, a direct depositor, can be charged for withdrawing money from "some" ATMs. I also have to pay to get a printed statement. I can't remember how much; I think the deal is if I go paperless they waive the monthly minimum balance requirement.
QuoteEmployers have an incentive to offer pay cards because the fees are lower - probably because of the fees the financial institution makes off of the paycards.
Are you perhaps basing that statement on this from the article?
QuoteCompanies and card issuers, which include Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, say the cards are cheaper and more efficient than checks — a calculator on Visa's Web site estimates that a company with 500 workers could save $21,000 a year by switching from checks to payroll cards. On its Web site, Citigroup trumpets how the cards "guarantee pay on time to all employees."
This is talking about the cost advantage of pay cards over paper checks. I don't doubt that companies can save a lot of money by ditching paper checks. What's not stated in the NYT article is whether pay cards are cheaper than direct deposit.
Yi, I am basing my comments on the link I posted presenting the business case for using pay cards.
http://av.conferencearchives.com/pdfs/100402/365.pdf
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 12:50:06 PM
Yi, I am basing my comments on the link I posted presenting the business case for using pay cards.
http://av.conferencearchives.com/pdfs/100402/365.pdf
I skimmed through about page 20, couldn't see where they say user fees are higher for pay card holders than for direct depositees.
The only employer processing cost comparison I could see was between paper checks and pay cards. I don't think anyone is disputing that paper checks are expensive.
The presentation indicates that the majority of payroll transactions are direct deposit and then later makes the point that pay card transactions are a more efficient choice for business.
Can you give me a page number? I didn't see that.
Pages 9 and 17.
Also, if this new system of delivering payroll wasnt not less expensive than direct deposit - why would business be interested in using it for anyone other than transient workers?
HOLD ON. WORK IN PROGRESS!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 01:25:54 PM
Pages 9 and 17.
Page 9:
* The majority of payroll disbursements have been converted to direct deposit.
* Most non-direct deposit payroll disbursements are made via paper check.
Page 17:
* Corporates place significant importance on electronifying payroll processes.
* Payroll card adoption is still in its early stages, but corporates indicate knowledge about payroll cards is increasing.
* Efficiency gains and reduced costs drive adoption of payroll card programs.
* Blah blah blah
* Blah blah blah
QuoteAlso, if this new system of delivering payroll wasnt not less expensive than direct deposit - why would business be interested in using it for anyone other than transient workers?
I would think to accommodate employees who don't have bank accounts. As I said, my employer offers the pay card option but tells everyone it sucks.
I wonder how any system can be cheaper than direct deposit. Put the account information in your HR/finance software and let a job do all the direct deposits each month. Are there fees for direct deposits in the US?
I would expect that preparing and distributing physical paycards is always the more expensive solution than a direct deposit.
I could see the case when you have just very few employees and maybe no software, but the articles referred to McDonald's etc., not small mom-and-pop stores.
Quote from: Zanza on July 02, 2013, 01:47:01 PM
Are there fees for direct deposits in the US?
You mean charged by the receiving bank? Never heard of them, would be surprised if there were.
No, fees by your own bank when do a direct deposit.
Quote from: Zanza on July 02, 2013, 02:01:59 PM
No, fees by your own bank when do a direct deposit.
That's what I meant too. Not aware of any.
As a matter of fact most places I've banked have offered deals (such as waiving monthly fees or balance requirements) when you sign up for direct deposit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 02:13:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 02, 2013, 02:01:59 PM
No, fees by your own bank when do a direct deposit.
That's what I meant too. Not aware of any.
As a matter of fact most places I've banked have offered deals (such as waiving monthly fees or balance requirements) when you sign up for direct deposit.
Yep. I think one's own bank is generally happy to have you setup on direct deposit as that means they have a guaranteed influx in cash in your account.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2013, 02:16:40 PM
Yep. I think one's own bank is generally happy to have you setup on direct deposit as that means they have a guaranteed influx in cash in your account.
I'm guessing the biggest incentive is no teller needed to handle your paper deposit.
Ah yeah, that makes sense.
Ah here's another bit I found on why:
Quote1. Automated services help lessen work on the teller line. Time that used to be spent waiting on customers depositing checks can be used elsewhere or eliminated. This is the same reason institutions will push debit/ATM cards and Internet/mobile banking.
2. Direct deposit builds customer attachment to the institution. The more attachment a customer has, the less likely he is to switch institutions. Part of this is because, as Blue Jello Elf explains, switching direct deposit is a pain.
3. The guaranteed stream of deposits also helps boost an institution's balance books.
Though I'm not sure how much of a hassle it is to switch direct deposit. I don't remember getting my panties in a twist when I switched my direct deposit account at one of my jobs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 02:13:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 02, 2013, 02:01:59 PM
No, fees by your own bank when do a direct deposit.
That's what I meant too. Not aware of any.
As a matter of fact most places I've banked have offered deals (such as waiving monthly fees or balance requirements) when you sign up for direct deposit.
No, I meant are there any fees for the employer from his bank when he does direct deposits into his employee's accounts?
At least for private customers here, depositing money into someone else's bank account in the European Union is free. Not sure if employers pay a fee, but I doubt they would pay one per transaction, probably rather that they pay a general fee for all banking services.
Quote from: Zanza on July 02, 2013, 02:28:10 PM
No, I meant are there any fees for the employer from his bank when he does direct deposits into his employee's accounts?
Don't know. But even if there were, shouldn't they be charging the same to move the money to the various payroll card accounts?
Too bad we don't have a poster who works in HR. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 02:33:31 PM
Too bad we don't have a poster who works in HR. :hmm:
Yeah, it's a damn shame.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2013, 01:39:35 PM
HOLD ON. WORK IN PROGRESS!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2013, 01:25:54 PM
Pages 9 and 17.
Page 9:
* The majority of payroll disbursements have been converted to direct deposit.
* Most non-direct deposit payroll disbursements are made via paper check.
Page 17:
* Corporates place significant importance on electronifying payroll processes.
* Payroll card adoption is still in its early stages, but corporates indicate knowledge about payroll cards is increasing.
* Efficiency gains and reduced costs drive adoption of payroll card programs.
* Blah blah blah
* Blah blah blah
QuoteAlso, if this new system of delivering payroll wasnt not less expensive than direct deposit - why would business be interested in using it for anyone other than transient workers?
I would think to accommodate employees who don't have bank accounts. As I said, my employer offers the pay card option but tells everyone it sucks.
Yeah, that's been my experience--employers want their employees to set up direct deposit because it's the simplest, least expensive system for both the employer and the employee. They offer paycards to accomodate those employees who don't have a checking account (or who do, but for some reason refuse to use it for direct deposit--I know a few people who have checking accounts but refuse to sign up for direct deposit for various reasons).
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2013, 09:59:54 PM
I know a few people who have checking accounts but refuse to sign up for direct deposit for various reasons).
And what reasons could these moochers, sponges, deadbeats, boneheads and obvious minorities possibly have to refuse to sign up for direct deposit, the very engine that makes this economy run?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2013, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2013, 09:59:54 PM
I know a few people who have checking accounts but refuse to sign up for direct deposit for various reasons).
And what reasons could these moochers, sponges, deadbeats, boneheads and obvious minorities possibly have to refuse to sign up for direct deposit, the very engine that makes this economy run?
Hiding part of their income from there spouses is probably the most common reason.
Unheard of! :mad:
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2013, 10:04:48 PM
Hiding part of their income from there spouses is probably the most common reason.
:yes:
When I worked in recruiting and had divorced consultants, it was common for them to try to play games with their payment methods for that reason.... especially if they were supposed to be paying child support.
Bitches don't need to know everything.
I had this one dude who, in his initial interview, referred to his ex-wife not as his ex-wife but as "the pig" and "the cunt". I'm not even sure why his ex-wife even came up.... he had to have brought it up as we never asked people about their personal lives. :hmm:
Anyway, I hired him. Dude had some mad leet DBA skillz. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 03, 2013, 06:44:49 AM
I had this one dude who, in his initial interview, referred to his ex-wife not as his ex-wife but as "the pig" and "the cunt". I'm not even sure why his ex-wife even came up.... he had to have brought it up as we never asked people about their personal lives. :hmm:
Anyway, I hired him. Dude had some mad leet DBA skillz. :)
:blink:
But an edgy credit score will keep them out of a job??
Meri, you sure are focused on bad credit scores...
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
Meri, you sure are focused on bad credit scores...
:mellow:
Having lived with a bad credit score, I'm well-aware of how badly that affects so many aspects of your life. It's not just for a mortgage or a credit card. You can miss out on a job, getting an apartment, having the ability to open a checking (or savings) account. It permeates so many aspects of your life. The hard part is that once you have bad credit, it's really, really hard to get better credit.
You can't get a good paying job because they won't hire you, so you take a lower paying job to make ends meet, which doesn't look good on your resume because why would you take such a low-paying job? (This was before the big recession, before so many others had done something similar just because they couldn't get any job at all.) On top of that, by taking the lower-paying job, it's harder to pay the bills you have. Even if you could get a credit card, you don't want to bother with it because what if you can't pay that bill one month? Now you've just made the situation worse, rather than better. All of this is assuming that you can find a bank that will give you a bank account at all, much less a credit card.
You're golden if you're already in a decent apartment when your credit score tanks, but if you have to move, you're in deep shit. I owned a house but lost it during the whole divorce thing. So, when it was time to start looking for a new place, I was turned down repeatedly due to my credit score before a nice Asian lady took pity on me and offered me a place. (Having owned for the previous six years, I didn't have a reference that could vouch for me.)
So yeah, I'm a little focused on bad credit scores. By the way, that's not something I read about or saw in a report. That's actually what I went through due to poor credit.
I was more interested in your reaction to Cal giving a job to the dude who called his ex a cunt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2013, 09:42:54 AM
I was more interested in your reaction to Cal giving a job to the dude who called his ex a cunt.
I'm just amazed by that. I mean, seriously? That's how he acts in an
interview and you give him a job?
DBAs are weird creatures.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2013, 09:42:54 AM
I was more interested in your reaction to Cal giving a job to the dude who called his ex a cunt.
I'm just amazed by that. I mean, seriously? That's how he acts in an interview and you give him a job?
An ability to read the audience and adapt to it is pretty positive.
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2013, 09:52:13 AM
DBAs are weird creatures.
What are DBAs?
EDIT: Nevermind. Database Admins. *heads off for more coffee*
Quote from: Caliga on July 03, 2013, 06:44:49 AM
I had this one dude who, in his initial interview, referred to his ex-wife not as his ex-wife but as "the pig" and "the cunt". I'm not even sure why his ex-wife even came up.... he had to have brought it up as we never asked people about their personal lives. :hmm:
Anyway, I hired him. Dude had some mad leet DBA skillz. :)
:cheers:
Bros before hos
I'm assuming you guys are waiting on me to freak out over the use of the word "cunt". Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. I don't really care. It's just a word. Not a very nice word, culturally speaking, but still just a word.
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
Cal's saying he turned out to be a good worker. Now sure how came to the conclusion that hiring him was ignorant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2013, 12:33:57 PM
Cal's saying he turned out to be a good worker. Now sure how came to the conclusion that hiring him was ignorant.
Did he? I thought he just said that they hired him because he had good DBA skills. I don't remember anything about how he was as a worker.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
Nah, definitely dumber to say it. High risk, little chance of reward. The interviewer, OTOH, can make a decision based on quite a number of other factors. I don't think the slightly higher chance of a harassment suit that will end up being settled for less than the guy makes in a year is a good reason to simply rule him out.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 12:39:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
Nah, definitely dumber to say it. High risk, little chance of reward. The interviewer, OTOH, can make a decision based on quite a number of other factors. I don't think the slightly higher chance of a harassment suit that will end up being settled for less than the guy makes in a year is a good reason to simply rule him out.
I'm going more with poor impulse control, lack of good judgment, and no decorum.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 12:39:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
Nah, definitely dumber to say it. High risk, little chance of reward. The interviewer, OTOH, can make a decision based on quite a number of other factors. I don't think the slightly higher chance of a harassment suit that will end up being settled for less than the guy makes in a year is a good reason to simply rule him out.
Making hiring decisions involves balancing a lot of factors. You never have a perfect candidate (when a candidate seems perfect or nearly so you wonder what you're missing) and there is always some risk. Basically, though, you have to ask yourself a series of questions about the applicant:
1) Does the applicant have the skills needed to do the job?
2) Does the applicant's track record indicate that he or she is likely to be reliable?
3) Does anything about the applicant raise heightened concerns about security/employee theft risk?
4) Does the applicant seem likely to be able to work with the current staff?
Saying "cunt" in the interview would have raised a red flag with regards to the 4th question and possibly the 1st if the position required dealing with the public on a regular basis. It wouldn't have been an automatic disqualifier, but it would have come awfully close.
He's interviewing for a highly skilled IT post, that's to be expected. :nerd:
You must be a redneck when you bring a beer to a job interview. :D
Quote from: dps on July 03, 2013, 12:52:24 PM
Saying "cunt" in the interview would have raised a red flag with regards to the 4th question and possibly the 1st if the position required dealing with the public on a regular basis. It wouldn't have been an automatic disqualifier, but it would have come awfully close.
It would've been for me. If you don't have the common courtesy--let alone common sense--not to use profane language in a job interview, you obviously don't possess the interpersonal skills to succeed in the work environment that I am responsible for maintaining. Obviously he wouldn't be able to deal with coworkers, let alone the public.
Besides, it would violate established corporate policies on respect, diversity, et cetera, which are a condition of employment.
Figured that would be a slam dunk, but Cal dumpster dives for lunch anyway, so I don't expect anything less from him.
:lol: If Cal hadn't hired the guy you would have said he was worse than Hitler.
Nah. It's obvious the guy has personal issues he needs to work out at home before he could bring them to work.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
I'm assuming you guys are waiting on me to freak out over the use of the word "cunt". Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. I don't really care. It's just a word. Not a very nice word, culturally speaking, but still just a word.
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
I was hoping for a little anger over the idea of hiring a man who said bad things about women. Or, if I was really lucky, just hiring a man when there were unemployed women out there. You're the closest thing to a gender warrior we have, other than the occasional member of the seduction community. And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.
Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.
Nah, I'm just the guy that's had to deal with gender-related workplace violence. But hey, punch away.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 01:34:33 PM
Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.
Obviously you've had negative experiences with women then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2013, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.
Nah, I'm just the guy that's had to deal with gender-related workplace violence. But hey, punch away.
Yeah? You just couldn't help yourself and started beating up your female co-workers? Crazy.
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk got me there, that was a good 'un.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
I was hoping for a little anger over the idea of hiring a man who said bad things about women. Or, if I was really lucky, just hiring a man when there were unemployed women out there. You're the closest thing to a gender warrior we have, other than the occasional member of the seduction community. And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.
I fail. :(
You know, I forgot about Jacob. He's usually good to stick up for women.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 01:44:46 PM
You know, I forgot about Jacob. He's usually good to stick up for women.
I'm eminently forgettable :(
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
I'm assuming you guys are waiting on me to freak out over the use of the word "cunt". Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. I don't really care. It's just a word. Not a very nice word, culturally speaking, but still just a word.
Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.
I was hoping for a little anger over the idea of hiring a man who said bad things about women. Or, if I was really lucky, just hiring a man when there were unemployed women out there. You're the closest thing to a gender warrior we have, other than the occasional member of the seduction community. And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.
Aren't I the one who always gets knocked for my bit of feminist studies?
By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM
By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.
You're right where you're supposed to be, Kosher Kitten.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 01:34:33 PM
Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.
Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may. When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him. To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM
By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.
You're right where you're supposed to be, Kosher Kitten.
Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 02:02:21 PM
Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.
How many more you need?
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 02:02:21 PM
Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.
Sure you can, just find a desk. :contract:
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM
By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.
You probably had one too many cuntcussions in the line of duty.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2013, 02:02:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 01:34:33 PM
Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.
Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may. When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him. To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.
When he freaks out one day and the company gets sued for sexual harassment in fostering a hostile work environment because Mr. DBA discusses his pig cunt ex-wife in the break room, that explanation will look swell during your deposition when you're asked about the sexually derogatory and misogynist references you witnessed during his pre-employment interview.
Looking out for liability is also in the interests of the company, and one of your responsibilities which you betrayed by hiring him.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2013, 02:02:05 PMMaybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may. When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him. To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.
True enough, in the abstract. There's always a hypothetical scenario where any given red flag would still leave a particular candidate as the best possible of the available candidates.
Personally, and a more practical level, I've found that hiring for team fit and culture (assuming team culture includes getting shit done) provides the best results. And generally constructive team cultures don't benefit from having someone introduced to them who is overflowing with bitterness to the point that they don't respect common social boundaries. I'm much more concerned with that aspect of it than the use of the word "cunt" - it's a fine word provided it's used in the right context; a job interview, however, is not the right context.
As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2013, 02:02:05 PMMaybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may. When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him. To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.
True enough, in the abstract. There's always a hypothetical scenario where any given red flag would still leave a particular candidate as the best possible of the available candidates.
Personally, and a more practical level, I've found that hiring for team fit and culture (assuming team culture includes getting shit done) provides the best results. And generally constructive team cultures don't benefit from having someone introduced to them who is overflowing with bitterness to the point that they don't respect common social boundaries. I'm much more concerned with that aspect of it than the use of the word "cunt" - it's a fine word provided it's used in the right context; a job interview, however, is not the right context.
As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.
:yes:
Said much better than I. :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.
You have more luxury to pick and choose than somebody hiring for dull business applications. Though I think it's more that tech people are expected to be offensive without meaning to, due to social awkwardness.
Christ, no wonder we're up to our asses in lawyers in this country. You're all a bunch of liability magnets.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2013, 02:37:05 PMYou have more luxury to pick and choose than somebody hiring for dull business applications.
I don't think so, to be honest.
QuoteThough I think it's more that tech people are expected to be offensive without meaning to, due to social awkwardness.
There's plenty of social awkwardness that doesn't involve crossing social boundaries and displaying excessive bitterness. That's a bad bad combination right there. How's he going to hold up if things get stressful on the job? The answer is very likely "terribly".
Yeah, people who can't be professional generally relegate themselves to bottom of most hiring lists.
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 03, 2013, 01:54:39 PM
By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.
You're right where you're supposed to be, Kosher Kitten.
Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.
Go be a 1st Sgt somewhere.
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:36:38 PM
Did he? I thought he just said that they hired him because he had good DBA skills. I don't remember anything about how he was as a worker.
He was a very good worker. But we made sure to not put him on contracts where he'd report to a female. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 12:42:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 03, 2013, 12:36:38 PM
Did he? I thought he just said that they hired him because he had good DBA skills. I don't remember anything about how he was as a worker.
He was a very good worker. But we made sure to not put him on contracts where he'd report to a female. :ph34r:
He said "I'm an excellent worker" and you hired him based on that?
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Yeah, people who can't be professional generally relegate themselves to bottom of most hiring lists.
That's probably why he didn't have a permanent job and thus came to us looking for contract work.
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2013, 12:47:51 PM
He said "I'm an excellent worker" and you hired him based on that?
I'm an excellent driver.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
Personally, and a more practical level, I've found that hiring for team fit and culture (assuming team culture includes getting shit done) provides the best results. And generally constructive team cultures don't benefit from having someone introduced to them who is overflowing with bitterness to the point that they don't respect common social boundaries. I'm much more concerned with that aspect of it than the use of the word "cunt" - it's a fine word provided it's used in the right context; a job interview, however, is not the right context.
As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.
I agree with you on both of these points. However, at the time we needed someone with specific skills and the guy in question was the only one we could find. It's easy for the usual goofs in the peanut gallery here with a) no hiring/management experience and b) no experience managing client relationships to criticize me, of course. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 12:53:09 PM
I agree with you on both of these points. However, at the time we needed someone with specific skills and the guy in question was the only one we could find. It's easy for the usual goofs in the peanut gallery here with a) no hiring/management experience and b) no experience managing client relationships to criticize me, of course. :sleep:
You had to limit him to male-dominated contracts, but we're "goofs" for criticizing your hiring of him?
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 12:53:09 PM
It's easy for the usual goofs in the peanut gallery here with a) no hiring/management experience and b) no experience managing client relationships to criticize me, of course. :sleep:
Of course.
Quote from: merithyn on July 05, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 12:53:09 PM
I agree with you on both of these points. However, at the time we needed someone with specific skills and the guy in question was the only one we could find. It's easy for the usual goofs in the peanut gallery here with a) no hiring/management experience and b) no experience managing client relationships to criticize me, of course. :sleep:
You had to limit him to male-dominated contracts, but we're "goofs" for criticizing your hiring of him?
That's OK, meri. Us goofs with a) hiring/management experience and b) experience managing client relationships can do it.
It's neat how it's cool for everyone to mock me nonstop but the second I try a bit of turnabout, it isn't fair play. :)
..and Money, I was going to append something to my post about how you didn't meet those qualifications but I realized there was no point in proactively extending you an olive branch because you'd still find a way to kick me in the balls. :cheers:
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:08:17 PM
..and Money, I was going to append something to my post about how you didn't meet those qualifications but I realized there was no point in proactively extending you an olive branch because you'd still find a way to kick me in the balls. :cheers:
That's the best management decision you've made yet.
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:08:17 PM
It's neat how it's cool for everyone to mock me nonstop but the second I try a bit of turnabout, it isn't fair play. :)
..and Money, I was going to append something to my post about how you didn't meet those qualifications but I realized there was no point in proactively extending you an olive branch because you'd still find a way to kick me in the balls. :cheers:
Cal, I have never mocked you, except maybe once or twice joking about the HR thing. I think the rest is pure silliness.
I do, however, say that I can't imagine ever hiring someone who thinks that it's okay to refer to his ex-wife
during an interview as a cunt. That just raises far too many red flags for me to even consider it. You did what you felt you had to do, which apparently worked out for you. I would not have done so.
This thread reminds me of the first time I did a labour arbitration as a wee baby lawyer in a camp up in the wilds of British Columbia.
The amount of swearing going on in that room would have made some of the people here swoon (based on the comments in this thread). At one of the breaks I asked the arbitrator (an old grisled vet of such things) whether this kind of conduct was usual in these sorts of hearings.
He gave me one of those kindly smiles experienced people give to people who are well of of their depth and explained this was just the way the people in the camps spoke. Its when they stop swearing and start acting politely that you know something is up and you need to be on guard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2013, 01:12:04 PM
That's the best management decision you've made yet.
Forging a cordial relationship with CdM adds no value to the bottom line. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:15:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2013, 01:12:04 PM
That's the best management decision you've made yet.
Forging a cordial relationship with CdM adds no value to the bottom line. :)
It's a value-added commodity.
Quote from: merithyn on July 05, 2013, 01:14:04 PM
Cal, I have never mocked you, except maybe once or twice joking about the HR thing. I think the rest is pure silliness.
I do, however, say that I can't imagine ever hiring someone who thinks that it's okay to refer to his ex-wife during an interview as a cunt. That just raises far too many red flags for me to even consider it. You did what you felt you had to do, which apparently worked out for you. I would not have done so.
Ok, now that I think about it, I don't recall you ever doing it so I apologize. :hug:
I did what I needed to do at the time in order to keep a client happy and paying us, yes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2013, 01:15:19 PM
He gave me one of those kindly smiles experienced people give to people who are well of of their depth and explained this was just the way the people in the camps spoke. Its when they stop swearing and start acting politely that you know something is up and you need to be on guard.
Another anecdote I'm not sure if I've ever shared here: when I interviewed with my current company, I had to do a ton of interviews, and the last one was with the CFO. I would say he dropped the F-bomb approximately 50 times during the interview. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:20:01 PM
I would say he dropped the F-bomb approximately 50 times during the interview. :lol:
He can do that.
Not only can he, but his delivery was magnificent.
Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:18:21 PM
I did what I needed to do at the time in order to keep a client happy and paying us, yes.
This is an immensely important thing that somehow often gets lost in discussions. Customer focus is everything.
See, this is why we need to Human Resource people like Cal. The rest of you had no idea how to handle this guy.
I wish people would stop bashing Cal. He's one of the nicest persons on this board and deserves better.
Cal is a fine and upstanding citizen. :D
Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
I wish people would stop bashing Cal. He's one of the nicest persons on this board and deserves better.
Cal's a good fellow. I've broken bread with him. His wife's nice too.
He also had the decency of not being really tall, like so many people from Languish I've met: Tonitrus, Yi, Anchor, vonMoltke, Elegant Sophist, Scip. Monsters, all.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2013, 09:27:59 PM
He also had the decency of not being really tall, like so many people from Languish I've met: Tonitrus, Yi, Anchor, vonMoltke, Elegant Sophist, Scip. Monsters, all.
Your premise is flawed. By your logic, I'm the most decent person on Languish. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2013, 09:27:59 PM
He also had the decency of not being really tall, like so many people from Languish I've met: Tonitrus, Yi, Anchor, vonMoltke, Elegant Sophist, Scip. Monsters, all.
Your premise is flawed. By your logic, I'm the most decent person on Languish. :P
Mono & Meri are shorter than you I think.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2013, 09:34:14 PM
Mono & Meri are shorter than you I think.
Hmm, maybe Meri. The number to beat is 5' 2" (I've given up giving my with-shoes height). I'm
that short.
Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
I wish people would stop bashing Cal. He's one of the nicest persons on this board and deserves better.
Indeed, leave Calney alone! :cry:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2013, 09:42:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2013, 09:34:14 PM
Mono & Meri are shorter than you I think.
Hmm, maybe Meri. The number to beat is 5' 2" (I've given up giving my with-shoes height). I'm that short.
I'm taller than you. :) I'm 5'2 3/4".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2013, 02:18:48 PM
When he freaks out one day and the company gets sued for sexual harassment in fostering a hostile work environment because Mr. DBA discusses his pig cunt ex-wife in the break room, that explanation will look swell during your deposition when you're asked about the sexually derogatory and misogynist references you witnessed during his pre-employment interview.
Looking out for liability is also in the interests of the company, and one of your responsibilities which you betrayed by hiring him.
Better that than having the guy I hired in his place freak out because he isn't qualified for his job, bring in an AK-47, and kill everyone in the office. I'd rather see my company face the lawsuit than go to 53 funerals.
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.
Well, you can make those decisions in defiance of facts if you desire - provided the company doesn't really need a database admin. However, I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion. We aren't talking here about someone who thinks he can be a dick to his co-workers. We are talking about a guy who has trouble controlling himself in a job interview when discussing an ex.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
3d option- tell the client you can't find anybody and return your fee. Yeah, that's going to happen.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2013, 08:23:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
3d option- tell the client you can't find anybody and return your fee. Yeah, that's going to happen.
You only got two applications for the position? Mr. Cunt and Mr. AK-47?
Maybe look beyond Craigslist for advertising.
From what I've heard, DBAs are in strong demand and snapped up pretty quickly, even in this economy.
I'm sure there's more than two around.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2013, 08:23:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
3d option- tell the client you can't find anybody and return your fee. Yeah, that's going to happen.
You only got two applications for the position? Mr. Cunt and Mr. AK-47?
Maybe look beyond Craigslist for advertising.
I wonder what happens when Mr. Cunt's wife shows up to find out why he isn't paying child support. Does he freak out and kill 53 people?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
I wonder what happens when Mr. Cunt's wife shows up to find out why he isn't paying child support. Does he freak out and kill 53 people?
Like Brain suggested earlier, the fact this guy used the word cunt in an interview with Cal doesn't necessarily mean he lacks impulse control.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
You only got two applications for the position? Mr. Cunt and Mr. AK-47?
Maybe look beyond Craigslist for advertising.
Either that or stop making up stupid consequences for hypothetical choices you don't like.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
You only got two applications for the position? Mr. Cunt and Mr. AK-47?
Maybe look beyond Craigslist for advertising.
Either that or stop making up stupid consequences for hypothetical choices you don't like.
You got it, Mr. Cunt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 03:47:28 PM
You got it, Mr. Cunt.
Glad we could come to an agreement, Mr. Postal.
Just for you, I'm going to drop "cunt" during my next interview, and see how it goes. :yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2013, 08:23:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 08:09:38 AM
And those are our two options. We can hire this guy or die.
3d option- tell the client you can't find anybody and return your fee. Yeah, that's going to happen.
You only got two applications for the position? Mr. Cunt and Mr. AK-47?
Maybe look beyond Craigslist for advertising.
Hire AK-47 dude, you would then have a shooting partner. :thumbsup:
Quote from: 11B4V on July 06, 2013, 04:40:45 PM
Hire AK-47 dude, you would then have a shooting partner. :thumbsup:
I interviewed a guy several years later who was a total outdoorsman and went into detail about his deer and turkey hunting. He hunted with both guns and crossbows. :cool: Would have loved to have hired him--though in this case I wasn't in the position to make the hiring decision--but then the goddamn position got put on hold and eventually eliminated. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
Just for you, I'm going to drop "cunt" during my next interview, and see how it goes. :yeah:
You need to do it subtly
Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
I wish people would stop bashing Cal. He's one of the nicest persons on this board and deserves better.
:lmfao:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
Just for you, I'm going to drop "cunt" during my next interview, and see how it goes. :yeah:
Watch out, you may just end up employed.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 06, 2013, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
Just for you, I'm going to drop "cunt" during my next interview, and see how it goes. :yeah:
You need to do it subtly
"What's that son, I cunt hear you. You'll have to speak up."
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2013, 02:17:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2013, 04:35:12 PM
Just for you, I'm going to drop "cunt" during my next interview, and see how it goes. :yeah:
Watch out, you may just end up employed.
Yeah, not saying cunt during his interviews has kept him unemployed for a long time now. He wouldn't want to screw up that track record.
Grumbler would hire him. Wouldn't want to accidentally get the crazy guy with the AK.
Experienced system administrator seeks employment in Caracas area:
+ Extensive international experience and contacts
+ Unique expertise in database security
+ Can supply own laptops
+ Some familiarity with Russian and Cantonese
+ partial references available
+ has never said the word "cunt"
Start date pending diplomatic flight schedule.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM
Experienced system administrator seeks employment in Caracas area:
+ Extensive international experience and contacts
+ Unique expertise in database security
+ Can supply own laptops
+ Some familiarity with Russian and Cantonese
+ partial references available
+ has never said the word "cunt"
Start date pending diplomatic flight schedule.
:P
:lol: