Complaint Review: Bank Of America Chase Bank Wells Fargo

Let's get back on the subject here! Enough of the conspiracy theories and such.

There is no rip off here and nothing illegal is happening. Period.

The OP CHOOSES not to have a bank account. Therefore he CHOOSES to pay fees to cash his paycheck. These are all choices.

Don't like paying fees? Simple solution. Open a bank account or tell your employer you want your pay loaded onto a prepaid debit card as provided for under the law. They cannot charge you for this.

Or, just elect direct deposit of your check. It's free and saves you a trip to the bank and your time standing in line.

let's look at the mentality of this thread. The OP "finds it a stupid practice to bank". Newsflash! Without banking, our economy would not work. It would crash.

The fact is, that it is a stupid practice NOT to bank. Cash under your pillow is not insured. Cash in your bank account is.

This is why employers do not pay in cash. It is a financial risk for them. keep in mind, that many companies have corporate offices who issue payroll that may be in another state on the other side of the country.

The dyas of the old company towns are gone, and so is cash payroll.

Get over it.

Now if you are going to make an employer put an extra $5 to cover the charge at the bank, are you going to put that on EVERYONE'S check? I'm saying this because not everyone uses their own bank, nor has a bank account. Some people use the check cashing places that charge a fee of either a set amount or a percentage. Wouldn't this be an accouting nightmare!! Plus, how would you actually PROVE that the check was actually cashed at the place until it cleared and came back to the employer. This would cost a large employer probably thousands a year. So, in my opinion, tacking on fee's to a paycheck, just because someone decides to cash a check somewhere, is not really fair.

Employer's are required to keep certain records for tax purposes, so I would think paying in cash would be somewhat feasable with adequate notice. 1 day notice wouldn't be feasable. Also, there are debit cards readily available now that can be used as a payment source so that you don't have to go to a bank to show your ID, cash a check, or pay fees, unless you use an ATM. But you are still able to pay your bills, buy groceries, etc... with the debit card. Plus you usually have a record of the amount put on the card, either on paper, or online.

So, there are ways to get around the "check cashing" fee's. You would just have to ask your employer to start using them, some already do.

Mike,

Payment at full face value means if the employee earns $200 net pay, the check must be for $200! If the check was reduced from $200 then there would be a violation.

Here is the point you are missing: The employee knowingly and willingly accepted the job with paydays and pay methods disclosed. he/she took the job and accepted these terms. Therefore, there is no labor law violation here.

Furthermore, the employee CHOOSES not to have a bank account. This is a CHOICE, and is not the employers fault, or problem.

And, one more thing, if the employer changes it's policy to 100% direct deposit, that will be perfectly legal too. If thi happens, the employee can quit, or open a bank account, or accept a prepaid debit card supplied by the employer with the paycheck on it.

This is all 100% legal. No ripoff here.

Mike,

Payment at full face value means if the employee earns $200 net pay, the check must be for $200! If the check was reduced from $200 then there would be a violation.

Here is the point you are missing: The employee knowingly and willingly accepted the job with paydays and pay methods disclosed. he/she took the job and accepted these terms. Therefore, there is no labor law violation here.

Furthermore, the employee CHOOSES not to have a bank account. This is a CHOICE, and is not the employers fault, or problem.

And, one more thing, if the employer changes it's policy to 100% direct deposit, that will be perfectly legal too. If thi happens, the employee can quit, or open a bank account, or accept a prepaid debit card supplied by the employer with the paycheck on it.

This is all 100% legal. No ripoff here.

Mike,

Payment at full face value means if the employee earns $200 net pay, the check must be for $200! If the check was reduced from $200 then there would be a violation.

Here is the point you are missing: The employee knowingly and willingly accepted the job with paydays and pay methods disclosed. he/she took the job and accepted these terms. Therefore, there is no labor law violation here.

Furthermore, the employee CHOOSES not to have a bank account. This is a CHOICE, and is not the employers fault, or problem.

And, one more thing, if the employer changes it's policy to 100% direct deposit, that will be perfectly legal too. If thi happens, the employee can quit, or open a bank account, or accept a prepaid debit card supplied by the employer with the paycheck on it.

This is all 100% legal. No ripoff here.

Mike,

Payment at full face value means if the employee earns $200 net pay, the check must be for $200! If the check was reduced from $200 then there would be a violation.

Here is the point you are missing: The employee knowingly and willingly accepted the job with paydays and pay methods disclosed. he/she took the job and accepted these terms. Therefore, there is no labor law violation here.

Furthermore, the employee CHOOSES not to have a bank account. This is a CHOICE, and is not the employers fault, or problem.

And, one more thing, if the employer changes it's policy to 100% direct deposit, that will be perfectly legal too. If thi happens, the employee can quit, or open a bank account, or accept a prepaid debit card supplied by the employer with the paycheck on it.

This is all 100% legal. No ripoff here.

that they charge NON CUSTOMERS to cash checks. Don't you see the benefit? Hey go to your OWN bank and cash the check rather than holding up lines in the account holders bank. If these people still want to cash checks at banks they don't belong to, they need to pay to inconvenience the bank's customers.

People constantly complain about the line at the bank, do you have any idea HOW MANY of those people in those lines don't even have an account at that bank? That's why you'll notice the bank employees trying to get them to open accounts, every Friday same thing, also, for those who ARE customers who still come in like it's 1955 to cash their checks on Fridays, you'll hear the employees trying to get them to go with direct deposit- it's all about making the banking center more efficient which in turn makes it a better experience for the REAL customers.

that they charge NON CUSTOMERS to cash checks. Don't you see the benefit? Hey go to your OWN bank and cash the check rather than holding up lines in the account holders bank. If these people still want to cash checks at banks they don't belong to, they need to pay to inconvenience the bank's customers.

People constantly complain about the line at the bank, do you have any idea HOW MANY of those people in those lines don't even have an account at that bank? That's why you'll notice the bank employees trying to get them to open accounts, every Friday same thing, also, for those who ARE customers who still come in like it's 1955 to cash their checks on Fridays, you'll hear the employees trying to get them to go with direct deposit- it's all about making the banking center more efficient which in turn makes it a better experience for the REAL customers.

This is the law that applies to this situation. Employers typically hire a bank to manage the payroll money instead of taking the obvious security risk of handing out cash on payday. In the old days of "company towns" the same company owned everything-- including the bank. It was natural to double dip. Laws like this one were enacted in every state to prevent that. It says that paychecks have to be "payable at face value upon demand."

Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that an employee can take their check to the bank and obtain the FULL face value in cash. Now if he wants to hire a third party to take the check to the issuing bank, such as another bank or a check-cashing store, there will be costs that he may have to bear. But if he goes to the issuing bank, "on demand" means without other conditions such as having to have a bank account. While there are costs involved in using a bank to distribute rightfully earned money to employees, those costs have to be paid by the employer, not the employee.

Since relatively few people are affected, and the amount of money seems small, no one may have bothered to test this in court yet.

This is the law that applies to this situation. Employers typically hire a bank to manage the payroll money instead of taking the obvious security risk of handing out cash on payday. In the old days of "company towns" the same company owned everything-- including the bank. It was natural to double dip. Laws like this one were enacted in every state to prevent that. It says that paychecks have to be "payable at face value upon demand."

Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that an employee can take their check to the bank and obtain the FULL face value in cash. Now if he wants to hire a third party to take the check to the issuing bank, such as another bank or a check-cashing store, there will be costs that he may have to bear. But if he goes to the issuing bank, "on demand" means without other conditions such as having to have a bank account. While there are costs involved in using a bank to distribute rightfully earned money to employees, those costs have to be paid by the employer, not the employee.

Since relatively few people are affected, and the amount of money seems small, no one may have bothered to test this in court yet.

This is the law that applies to this situation. Employers typically hire a bank to manage the payroll money instead of taking the obvious security risk of handing out cash on payday. In the old days of "company towns" the same company owned everything-- including the bank. It was natural to double dip. Laws like this one were enacted in every state to prevent that. It says that paychecks have to be "payable at face value upon demand."

Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that an employee can take their check to the bank and obtain the FULL face value in cash. Now if he wants to hire a third party to take the check to the issuing bank, such as another bank or a check-cashing store, there will be costs that he may have to bear. But if he goes to the issuing bank, "on demand" means without other conditions such as having to have a bank account. While there are costs involved in using a bank to distribute rightfully earned money to employees, those costs have to be paid by the employer, not the employee.

Since relatively few people are affected, and the amount of money seems small, no one may have bothered to test this in court yet.

This is the law that applies to this situation. Employers typically hire a bank to manage the payroll money instead of taking the obvious security risk of handing out cash on payday. In the old days of "company towns" the same company owned everything-- including the bank. It was natural to double dip. Laws like this one were enacted in every state to prevent that. It says that paychecks have to be "payable at face value upon demand."

Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that an employee can take their check to the bank and obtain the FULL face value in cash. Now if he wants to hire a third party to take the check to the issuing bank, such as another bank or a check-cashing store, there will be costs that he may have to bear. But if he goes to the issuing bank, "on demand" means without other conditions such as having to have a bank account. While there are costs involved in using a bank to distribute rightfully earned money to employees, those costs have to be paid by the employer, not the employee.

Since relatively few people are affected, and the amount of money seems small, no one may have bothered to test this in court yet.

Mike, are you serious?

First of all, this "law" has absolutely NOTHING to do with where an employee deposits or cashes a paycheck or what that institution charges for such services.

It simply says that the employer must pay the employee in US FUNDS by cash or check or debit card or direct deposit.

The terms of pay are discussed AND agreed upon at time of hire. As long as any other terms or fees are disclosed, and agreed upon, it is perfectly legal.

You can read into it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so.


Mike wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
The following 2 paragraphs are from the Code of Virginia, section 40.1-29. Every other state almost certainly has a similar law.

B. Payment of wages or salaries shall be (i) in lawful money of the United States, (ii) by check payable at face value upon demand in lawful money of the United States, (iii) by electronic automated fund transfer in lawful money of the United States into an account in the name of the employee at a financial institution designated by the employee, or (iv) by credit to a prepaid debit card or card account from which the employee is able to withdraw or transfer funds with full disclosure by the employer of any applicable fees and affirmative consent thereto by the employee.

Failure of the employee to designate a financial institution or consent to payment by credit to a prepaid debit card or card account under clause (iii) or clause (iv) shall require payment of wages and salaries to be made in accordance with clause (i) or clause (ii) of this subsection. However, payment may be made under clause (iv) to an employee who has not affirmatively consented thereto if (a) payment cannot be made under clause (iii) because the employee has failed to designate a financial institution and (b) the employee is employed at any facility where the operation of amusement devices is authorized pursuant to a certificate of inspection issued under � 36-98.3 and any regulations promulgated thereunder.

It doesn't get much clearer than "check payable AT FACE VALUE upon demand." I included the second paragraph because it makes it clear that methods (iii) and (iv) are optional at the employee's choice, except when amusement devices are involved.

Technically the employer is breaking the law, not the bank. If an employer uses a bank that charges the employees to cash their checks (and someone complains about it), it is illegal.

Mike - Radford, Virginia
U.S.A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's nice to actually understand what is written before posting information like that.

The following 2 paragraphs are from the Code of Virginia, section 40.1-29. Every other state almost certainly has a similar law.

B. Payment of wages or salaries shall be (i) in lawful money of the United States, (ii) by check payable at face value upon demand in lawful money of the United States, (iii) by electronic automated fund transfer in lawful money of the United States into an account in the name of the employee at a financial institution designated by the employee, or (iv) by credit to a prepaid debit card or card account from which the employee is able to withdraw or transfer funds with full disclosure by the employer of any applicable fees and affirmative consent thereto by the employee.

Failure of the employee to designate a financial institution or consent to payment by credit to a prepaid debit card or card account under clause (iii) or clause (iv) shall require payment of wages and salaries to be made in accordance with clause (i) or clause (ii) of this subsection. However, payment may be made under clause (iv) to an employee who has not affirmatively consented thereto if (a) payment cannot be made under clause (iii) because the employee has failed to designate a financial institution and (b) the employee is employed at any facility where the operation of amusement devices is authorized pursuant to a certificate of inspection issued under � 36-98.3 and any regulations promulgated thereunder.

It doesn't get much clearer than "check payable AT FACE VALUE upon demand." I included the second paragraph because it makes it clear that methods (iii) and (iv) are optional at the employee's choice, except when amusement devices are involved.

Technically the employer is breaking the law, not the bank. If an employer uses a bank that charges the employees to cash their checks (and someone complains about it), it is illegal.

We've had this conversation before. This is not a free service. The bank charges the person who wrote the check to provide just such a service. Some bank weenie came up with the idea of charging the person who received the check if they go to a window and want to cash that same check that they've already charged for. Pretty smart. Pretty unethical. Charging twice for the same transaction. After all, how many people are gonna' b***h? A couple, a few? The rest of the suckers are gonna' pay it. We'll keep the fee low, say $3 or $4 or $5. They'll just pay it. What's the worst? A couple we cash for free like we should. Here's some more ideas. We charge to give a balance. We charge to talk to a customer. We charge to take in coin. We charge to make cashier's checks. We charge for a statement. We charge you to use your money. There's all different ways to screw customers. What's next?

We've had this conversation before. This is not a free service. The bank charges the person who wrote the check to provide just such a service. Some bank weenie came up with the idea of charging the person who received the check if they go to a window and want to cash that same check that they've already charged for. Pretty smart. Pretty unethical. Charging twice for the same transaction. After all, how many people are gonna' b***h? A couple, a few? The rest of the suckers are gonna' pay it. We'll keep the fee low, say $3 or $4 or $5. They'll just pay it. What's the worst? A couple we cash for free like we should. Here's some more ideas. We charge to give a balance. We charge to talk to a customer. We charge to take in coin. We charge to make cashier's checks. We charge for a statement. We charge you to use your money. There's all different ways to screw customers. What's next?

We've had this conversation before. This is not a free service. The bank charges the person who wrote the check to provide just such a service. Some bank weenie came up with the idea of charging the person who received the check if they go to a window and want to cash that same check that they've already charged for. Pretty smart. Pretty unethical. Charging twice for the same transaction. After all, how many people are gonna' b***h? A couple, a few? The rest of the suckers are gonna' pay it. We'll keep the fee low, say $3 or $4 or $5. They'll just pay it. What's the worst? A couple we cash for free like we should. Here's some more ideas. We charge to give a balance. We charge to talk to a customer. We charge to take in coin. We charge to make cashier's checks. We charge for a statement. We charge you to use your money. There's all different ways to screw customers. What's next?

We've had this conversation before. This is not a free service. The bank charges the person who wrote the check to provide just such a service. Some bank weenie came up with the idea of charging the person who received the check if they go to a window and want to cash that same check that they've already charged for. Pretty smart. Pretty unethical. Charging twice for the same transaction. After all, how many people are gonna' b***h? A couple, a few? The rest of the suckers are gonna' pay it. We'll keep the fee low, say $3 or $4 or $5. They'll just pay it. What's the worst? A couple we cash for free like we should. Here's some more ideas. We charge to give a balance. We charge to talk to a customer. We charge to take in coin. We charge to make cashier's checks. We charge for a statement. We charge you to use your money. There's all different ways to screw customers. What's next?

Mike,

I suggest you share with us exactly what labor law is being violated here.

You have some misconceptions about how things work. You ARE required, in many cases to take a check. And an employer forcing check payment on an employee in not in violation of any labor law.

If you draw ANY government benefit, you are required by federal law to either take a check or have direct deposit. They will not pay cash.

When an employer hires you and tells you that you will get a check every week, or every two weeks, etc. That is disclosure. If you want cash, the employer is not obligated to pay you in cash. Find another job. That is you only right.

Now, as far as the OP goes, what is the big deal about having a checking account? Get one. relieve some stress, and save some money. Utter studidity to bank? WHAT??? Your account is privacy protected and insured by the FDIC. The money under your pillow is not.

The reason these banks charge YOU to cash YOUR check is that YOU are NOT their customer. Why does that bank owe you FREE service? They don't.

The practice needs to be outlawed, but since banks are allowed to write the banking laws this isn't going to happen.

You don't have to accept checks from anyone. Demand payment in cash (mention this up front in the negotiation process, and explain why), or if they insist on writing a check tell them it needs to be for $5.00 more to cover the bank fee.

If it happens with pay checks from an employment situation rather than a private contractor, it is a violation of labor laws and you can complain to the state's labor board.

Is because you are not an account holder. You're using the banks services while not generating any income for the bank, or having any funds on deposit which the bank can use for loans. You cost the bank money every time you step into the branch, and rather than pass that cost onto account holders, they pass it back to you. Just about every bank does this, so BofA isn't unusual in this regard.

I suggest you open a checking account or alternatively demand payment in cash, or demand an extra couple of bucks to cover the cost of the check cashing.

Just rip us off somemore!! Brennen