[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:08 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

The issue isn't the fees but the lack of choice of where and how the wages are paid.

I'd doubt the bank were aware of how the franchisee was using their product, a product they would have been paying the franchisee a commission on too.

Yes and I am sure the franchisee is the one where the $$ signs were lighting up first and no one in their right mind would chose an account/card that charges that much if they had alternative but unlike here its quite hard in the US to get at your own money completely for free.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:39 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

... I'd doubt the bank were aware of how the franchisee was using their product, a product they would have been paying the franchisee a commission on too.

I would have thought that, if there is a regular stream of cards/accounts being asked for by the company, they'd have a clue.

[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:10 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I would have thought that, if there is a regular stream of cards/accounts being asked for by the company, they'd have a clue.

Not necessarily. A card scheme like that is just a product to the bank. They may operate many such schemes for all sorts of businesses who all all have different t&c's.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:23 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Here take this debit card This is now getting beyond disgusting It's a terrible managerial mistake made by some franchisee. Similar stupidity will be replayed thousands of times throughout the world. But hey, it's McDonald's, so quit your job, run to a lawyer and hope you've won the class action lawsuit jackpot.

cod'ead wrote: Here take this debit card This is now getting beyond disgusting It's a terrible managerial mistake made by some franchisee. Similar stupidity will be replayed thousands of times throughout the world. But hey, it's McDonald's, so quit your job, run to a lawyer and hope you've won the class action lawsuit jackpot.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:33 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It's a terrible managerial mistake made by some franchisee. Similar stupidity will be replayed thousands of times throughout the world.

But hey, it's McDonald's, so quit your job, run to a lawyer and hope you've won the class action lawsuit jackpot.

The fact that a class action law suit has been initiated would suggest that this is far from an isolated incident.

And as far as it being a "managerial mistake", that's total bollox. It was a cynical attempt to further profit from an already exploited employee.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

The fact that a class action law suit has been initiated would suggest that this is far from an isolated incident.

And as far as it being a "managerial mistake", that's total bollox. It was a cynical attempt to further profit from an already exploited employee.

The lawyer will be desperately hoping that this is a widespread issue and there are thousands of McDonald's employees who have been forced to pay fees because they weren't given a chance to take other payment methods. That will result in McDonald's being hammered mainly because it is McDonald's.

But at this time there's the one person who did the job for a couple of weeks and then quit because of a possible charge of a few dollars.

What the franchisee did was clearly wrong, just from the report. If this was a one man fast food stall who was forcing his new worker to take the payment in this way the lawyer would have just told the worker to point out that the employer was legally obliged to offer alternative payment methods and sent them back to work. But because it's the evil McDonald's he saw the $$$$$$ signs flashing and launched a class action lawsuit.

[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:56 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The lawyer will be desperately hoping that this is a widespread issue and there are thousands of McDonald's employees who have been forced to pay fees because they weren't given a chance to take other payment methods. That will result in McDonald's being hammered mainly because it is McDonald's.

No, it will result in the accused being hammered because they broke the law. I say accused because I am not sure who is being sued McDonalds or the franchisee.

If this was widespread enough for a class action to be feasible then the accused left themselves wide open and their own corporate lawyers are rubbish.

What the franchisee did was clearly wrong, just from the report. If this was a one man fast food stall who was forcing his new worker to take the payment in this way the lawyer would have just told the worker to point out that the employer was legally obliged to offer alternative payment methods and sent them back to work. But because it's the evil McDonald's he saw the $$$$$$ signs flashing and launched a class action lawsuit.

You can't bring a class action lawsuit on your own. So unless numerous people were being ripped off this way there would be no class action. If it were only one worker it would no doubt be prohibitive to sue the accused.

The notion if it were just one man the employee could point out the problem based on legal advice and it would all be fine shows an ignorance of the US labour market. "So sue me!" or "You're fired!" would be the reply and an individual could probably not afford to sue. Hence the need for class actions if more than one person is affected.

There is plenty of Ambulance chasing that goes on in the US (and here) which is not good but I don't think this case is like that whereby a lawyer senses a quick buck.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:42 am  

It's not too far away from the return of The Tommy Shop

It's not too far away from the return of The Tommy Shop

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:18 am  

DaveO wrote:

No, it will result in the accused being hammered because they broke the law. I say accused because I am not sure who is being sued McDonalds or the franchisee.

Some law breaking deserves to be hammered. Some law breaking is down to ignorance and can be rectified by simply informing the offender that their actions are against the law.

If this was widespread enough for a class action to be feasible then the accused left themselves wide open and their own corporate lawyers are rubbish.

They filed the action on Thursday. The filing of an action doesn't mean that the court have already found the party guilty, or that there is even a case to answer.

You can't bring a class action lawsuit on your own. So unless numerous people were being ripped off this way there would be no class action. If it were only one worker it would no doubt be prohibitive to sue the accused.

You can launch a class action lawsuit on your own. "The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries."

Obviously it's unlikely that the franchise only paid this woman in that way. It was probably the way they wished to pay all employees as it was likely cheaper. They have probably done it for a while over a few of their restaurants, depending on how big they are.

The notion if it were just one man the employee could point out the problem based on legal advice and it would all be fine shows an ignorance of the US labour market. "So sue me!" or "You're fired!" would be the reply and an individual could probably not afford to sue. Hence the need for class actions if more than one person is affected.

A woman who needs the money so much she cannot afford the fees of a few dollars. Her response is to quit her job after two weeks, go see a lawyer and launch a class action lawsuit.

It doesn't add up.

There is plenty of Ambulance chasing that goes on in the US (and here) which is not good but I don't think this case is like that whereby a lawyer senses a quick buck.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and asks for punitive, compensatory and liquidated damages, plus legal fees and litigation costs against the company for its "ill-gotten gains contrary to justice, equity, good conscience and Pennsylvania law."

Erm, WTFever.

[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:59 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Some law breaking deserves to be hammered. Some law breaking is down to ignorance and can be rectified by simply informing the offender that their actions are against the law.

A class action implies widespread abuse and you don't just slap wrists for that.

They filed the action on Thursday. The filing of an action doesn't mean that the court have already found the party guilty, or that there is even a case to answer.

I didn't say they were guilty but it left them open to an action. And it has since one has been filed.

You can launch a class action lawsuit on your own. "The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries."

No you can't. As you have just pointed out a class must consist of a group. They try the case with one or a few people on behalf of the "class" but you can't bring class actions if there is no "class". One plaintiff = no class action.

You do realise you contradicted yourself in one paragraph there don't you?

Obviously it's unlikely that the franchise only paid this woman in that way. It was probably the way they wished to pay all employees as it was likely cheaper. They have probably done it for a while over a few of their restaurants, depending on how big they are.

Obviously it's unlikely that the franchise only paid this woman in that way??? No it's not.

Paying electronically is cheaper. I know all about it since its the field of IT I work in. I also know given we sell US sourced ATM driving software what level of fees are typical as the fee structures are built in and these fees are not typical and have nothing to do with it being cheaper to process the payment.

A woman who needs the money so much she cannot afford the fees of a few dollars. Her response is to quit her job after two weeks, go see a lawyer and launch a class action lawsuit.

It doesn't add up.

Her wage was $7.44 an hour. The idea you can afford (and should have no option but to pay) transaction charges of $1.50 ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry and 75 cents per online bill payment suggests you can't add up.

I bet if your bank started charging you such fees you'd whinge like merry hell whether you are on minimum wage or not. If it turned out it was also illegal for them to do that you'd certainly not turn down any recompense coming out of a successful class action either.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and asks for punitive, compensatory and liquidated damages, plus legal fees and litigation costs against the company for its "ill-gotten gains contrary to justice, equity, good conscience and Pennsylvania law."

Erm, WTFever.

Yep lawyers use a funny language when they seek damages. And what they seek is not always what they get. It's starting point and the way the system works.