Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:06 am  

DaveO wrote:

... 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 really do think that some people don't have a clue about the reality of trying to live on poverty pay.

It seems to be a naive belief that no pay is so low that it will leave the employee struggling – unless they themselves are feckless. Or put another way, to blame.

It's just another version of the old Victorian belief that the poor were poor because they were sinful and therefore deserved it.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:08 am  

Mintball wrote:

I really do think that some people don't have a clue about the reality of trying to live on poverty pay.

It seems to be a naive belief that no pay is so low that it will leave the employee struggling – unless they themselves are feckless. Or put another way, to blame.

It's just another version of the old Victorian belief that the poor were poor because they were sinful and therefore deserved it.

She's a single mother. She was getting between 30 and 37 hours a week at $7.44 an hour. She says she cannot afford to pay the $1.50 ATM transaction fee, so she quits her job. Her pay is now $0.

That makes sense to you?

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:44 am  

When your rich the banks give you more money. When your poor the banks take money away from you.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:15 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

She's a single mother. She was getting between 30 and 37 hours a week at $7.44 an hour. She says she cannot afford to pay the $1.50 ATM transaction fee, so she quits her job. Her pay is now $0.

That makes sense to you?

Nice attempted swerve.

She objected to the planned payment method – and was told there was no option. What happens next in your world – that she says 'thank you' and allows her already low pay to be reduced further by this payment method?

What you post here suggests that those on low pay should simply put up and shut up. Well, that's the guaranteed way to ensure that a poor situation gets even worse.

Thank goodness the people who went before you didn't have the same attitude, eh? Imagine all the things that you wouldn't enjoy.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:24 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Nice attempted swerve.

She objected to the planned payment method – and was told there was no option. What happens next in your world – that she says 'thank you' and allows her already low pay to be reduced further by this payment method?

What you post here suggests that those on low pay should simply put up and shut up. Well, that's the guaranteed way to ensure that a poor situation gets even worse.

Thank goodness the people who went before you didn't have the same attitude, eh? Imagine all the things that you wouldn't enjoy.

If her safety was in danger, if she was being treated in a way that created intolerable stress, then I would say that should should quit instantly. I don't think a rational response to a $1.50 transaction fee is to jack your job in after a couple of weeks.

That, to me suggests a set up. It just doesn't ring true that "woman who cannot afford to lose $2" can just quit her job and survive on no income. You don't get income support if you quit a job in America, especially not if it's over a $1.50 withdrawal fee. I suspect that the lawyer got her to work at McD's for a couple of weeks then quit because he'd heard of the payment card.

I think she should have stayed in her job and complained in writing to the franchise management and McDonald's as well. The simple fact that it is a legal requirement in PA for employees to offer check payment should have meant it was quickly rectified.

Had she stayed employed there and the company continued to insist on paying with the exorbitant payroll cards then I would fully support the class action lawsuit and the company to fully re-reimburse every employee who has lost money because of it. I would fully agree with with a punitive punishment for the company for breaking the law.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:39 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

... I don't think a rational response to a $1.50 transaction fee is to jack your job in after a couple of weeks...

It wasn't a "response to a $1.50 transaction fee".

As, I suspect, you know perfectly well.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:54 pm  

If she'd stayed in the job, would that have amounted to a tacit agreement to receiving her pay in that way?

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:47 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

If she'd stayed in the job, would that have amounted to a tacit agreement to receiving her pay in that way?

It's against the law for employers to only offer payroll cards. It doesn't matter whether the employer is happy to accept the payroll card or not, it is still against the law.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:57 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It's against the law for employers to only offer payroll cards. It doesn't matter whether the employer is happy to accept the payroll card or not, it is still against the law.

Then how, in any way whatsoever, is this lady to blame for no longer working for a company engaged in illegal practise and using her legal right to recourse? Or the solicitor for enabling her to do so?

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:17 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If her safety was in danger, if she was being treated in a way that created intolerable stress, then I would say that should should quit instantly. I don't think a rational response to a $1.50 transaction fee is to jack your job in after a couple of weeks.

That, to me suggests a set up. It just doesn't ring true that "woman who cannot afford to lose $2" can just quit her job and survive on no income. You don't get income support if you quit a job in America, especially not if it's over a $1.50 withdrawal fee. I suspect that the lawyer got her to work at McD's for a couple of weeks then quit because he'd heard of the payment card.

I think she should have stayed in her job and complained in writing to the franchise management and McDonald's as well. The simple fact that it is a legal requirement in PA for employees to offer check payment should have meant it was quickly rectified.

Had she stayed employed there and the company continued to insist on paying with the exorbitant payroll cards then I would fully support the class action lawsuit and the company to fully re-reimburse every employee who has lost money because of it. I would fully agree with with a punitive punishment for the company for breaking the law.

Unless she got another job elsewhere, I think the likely explanation for her quitting is more to create a sensational news story which otherwise may have failed to achieve such coverage and subsequent media outrage. It is abhorrent behaviour by the franchisee, however, she is just a pawn in a game of lawyers for their gains.