Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Banks, Paychecks, Service Fees

This is topic Banks, Paychecks, Service Fees in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005889

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-17-2009, 01:13 PM:

Does this strike anyone else as odd? I'm told that a lot of banks do this now. If an employee brings a pay check to the bank that the business is using, the employee gets charged a service fee to cash the check if they don't have an account there. So in other words, Brad hires Joe. Brad banks at First National Bank of Rockwall Texas. Brad pays Joe with a paycheck drawn on his account at First National Bank of Rockwall Texas. Joe goes to the First National Bank or Rockwall Texas to cash the check, and they tell him that it will cost him $5 to cash the check there because Joe doesn't have an account there.

Does that make ANY sense at all? To me, if I have a check from bank "X" that says that it is worth $1,000, and when I get there they tell me that it is only worth $995, ... how is that not fraud?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-17-2009, 03:34 PM:

Fees generate more revenue for banks than any other source. The bank this theatre deals with started charging a fee to count any cash deposit over $12. After the GM moved the account tyo another bank the manager of the branch that lost the account called and said he could waive the fee if the account was returned

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-17-2009, 06:48 PM:

My wife works at a bank. They charge fees to cover the cost of all the services people demand for free: Checking accounts, checks, etc. They also have to cover the costs if, for example, Joe's check turns out to be a fake.

Banks are for-profit businesses. You can avoid any fee a bank charges by simply not using that particular service. In this example, Joe could avoid the fee by going to his own bank.

Like any other thing, it pays to shop around.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-17-2009, 08:29 PM:

In Kentucky, it is illegal to charge an employee to cash a pay check if the company has an account there (& has enough money).

This goes back to the olden days where the owner of a business would write a short letter telling the bank to give Brad some money. Later, this letter became what we now know as a check; originally only businesses would do this.

I have personally had BIG disagreements with bank managers who don't know better (Me: "Cash the check or I'm calling the police.") They call legal and then they explain it to the manager. "This guy is right!"

Varies by state. Louis

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-17-2009, 08:46 PM:

That's good to know, Louis.

And Mike, my wife works at a bank too. I'm all for a company making a buck, but the fact is that if your theater gives me a coupon that states that it is good for a free large popcorn when I turn it in to you, and then when I hand it in, you say that I have to give part of the popcorn in the bucket back to you in order to use said coupon - that at the very least is dishonest - or worse bait and switch, and at the very worst (and in the bank's case since it's specifically dealing with money) it's fraud. Prove me wrong. Somebody. Please.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-17-2009, 09:42 PM:

I can't see the bank in question of course, but here's LIKELY proof: There's probably a sign in the bank saying that they'll charge you to cash a check if you're not a customer.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
bank "X" that says that it is worth $1,000, and when I get there they tell me that it is only worth $995

They aren't telling you that. They're telling you that it costs $5 to cash the check. It's still worth a thousand dollars; you're free to take it somewhere else to cash it if you don't like the fee.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-17-2009, 10:56 PM:

Sounds to me like banks need a lot more regulation thrown at them. They have a payroll account at their bank...it is reasonable for employees to want the money they earned. The bank is not doing $5 of service to give the employee what they earned. I could understand if one went into neither the bank the check was drawn on or the bank that the employee used but not in going into the bank the check was drawn on.

To charge a service fee is definitely theft. The employee does not have a choice in what bank the employer uses and may not have a bank account of their own. At best (or worse), it should be the employer that is charged a fee for the service of having a payroll account. At that point, the employer could take their business elsewhere. But again..this is something that should be regulated.

I wonder if this has been tested to the supreme court. I don't think the banks would win unless some very incompetent lawyers went up against some very competent ones.

Steve

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-18-2009, 09:40 AM:

Banks must have teams of people whose only job is to come up with more things to charge fees for. Banks really work hard at making the public hate them. If gas stations had the same mentality as banks they would charge a fee for using the driveway, then a fee for the pump, another for hose and nozzle use, and another for accepting payment.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-18-2009, 11:27 AM:

Well Bill, they DO....it's all included in the mark up you pay for every single thing the store carries, including gas.

quote: Steve Guttag
To charge a service fee is definitely theft.

Not if the fee is posted and/or explained to the customer. Then the customer has the option - pay the fee, or don't use the service.

If I thought the way you guys do, the next time Mark G. comes to service my booth I would refuse to pay for his motel, meals and etc. After all, he's not working for me when he's sleeping!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-18-2009, 11:46 AM:

People actually still go into banks?

I haven't been inside an actual bank branch since I was in college and needed quarters for laundry (for some reason, the college laundry had no change machine). Now, I just deposit checks by mail and withdraw cash from ATMs. This saves an incredible amount of time when compared with actually going to a bank, although it obviously would not help if I needed immediate access to the cash. My regular paychecks are direct-deposited and I keep some cash at home, which solves that issue.

In principle, though, I agree that it should be possible to cash a paycheck without having a bank account and without paying a fee. When I was in high school, I worked one summer at a grocery store that allowed employees to cash their paychecks at the customer-service desk. I would think that this would be an acceptable approach for any cash-oriented business (retail, etc.).

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-18-2009, 11:49 AM:

Things like some of the fees that banks charge these days are the reason I have never had a bank account. But I have been a member of three credit unions for all of my working life: Stage Employees Federal Credit Union (FCU) for members (and former members) of IATSE Local 720, Hughes Aircraft Employees FCU (now called Kinecta FCU), and Nevada FCU.

Since the members of an FCU are also the shareholders, service fees tend to be low or non-existent. FCUs are definitely something to consider as an alternative to today's banks (says me, a former member of the board of directors for the Stage Employees FCU).

Regarding Scott's comments, my last employer Allegiant Air doesn't even issue live paychecks anymore - a condition of employment there is you must have a banking account somewhere so that your pay can be direct deposited. My FCU handles that and has global network connections for ATMs. There was rarely a need for me to visit a branch office. Better living through electronics.

The casinos here all cash paychecks - except their own generally. They have all kinds of promotions like double-your-paycheck drawings or prize wheel spins or free meals or free drinks, to entice locals to do so. No fees either, unless you choose to leave something behind on your way out, which is why they offer paycheck cashing. [Smile]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-18-2009, 01:19 PM:

Thats what we need. . . . a casino in a bank! Louis

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-18-2009, 02:03 PM:

quote:
If I thought the way you guys do, the next time Mark G. comes to service my booth I would refuse to pay for his motel, meals and etc. After all, he's not working for me when he's sleeping!

With all due respect... what the hell are you talking about? It seems to me that if you presented Mark G. with a contract that said that you would pay him so much money, and then gave him a check for that amount, and when he took it to your bank to cash it he was only able to get the amount you promised him minus $5, one of you (either you or your bank) has committed fraud.

Forget about there being other ways to cash the check that are free or cheaper. And don't assume that I automatically have $5 in my pocket to pay for cashing the check. That check is an official company document, which claims to be worth $X.00, which you traded for some amount of work. If that check turns out to be only worth some amount lower than that, well, my point is that that is fraud. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

Oh, and if it IS fraud, and you send it through the US mail, isn't that a felony?

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-18-2009, 02:29 PM:

No way is it fraud. No one is forcing you to cash the check at said bank. If you don't accept the fee then go elsewhere. How is the bank any different legally than the millions of check cashing services out there?

I'll give you one better though: While doing some charity collections out of my home area, I was told at one bank that they would not make change for free unless I was a customer. I was trying to exchange small bills for larger ones. No problem though, the next bank was all to willing to accommodate my needs at no charge.

Posted by James. R. Deeter (Member # 837) on 08-18-2009, 03:31 PM:

Forget the charges to cash a check, how about the "service charges" for coin business. Some of our own banks back charge us for buying a box of quarters, or pennies, etc. And some charged for even counting the daily deposits. We just went bank by bank, threatened to move to a competitor and were able to reduce many fees, but not all.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-18-2009, 06:37 PM:

Banks seem to take pride in fucking the customers with fees that no other industry would dare do. Mike, do you charge you customers a fee for counting their cash payment at the box office? Banks do.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-18-2009, 07:03 PM:

Generally, corporate customers and "key" customers don't pay any fees. You pay fees if the bank can "presuade" you to do so. I have no longer any loyalty to any bank and do not hesitate to move when not taken care of. Louis

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-18-2009, 09:11 PM:

quote:
Thats what we need. . . . a casino in a bank!

Well, they have been acting like casinos for quite a few years now, placing gigantic bets... with our money! And when they crashed, we bailed them out! WTF was up with that?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-18-2009, 10:12 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
No way is it fraud. No one is forcing you to cash the check at said bank.

You're missing the point. The check is FROM THE BANK, and it says it is worth a certain amount TO THEM. When you turn it in to them, you get less than that. Since that check is usually issued as a form of payment for some service or good (unless it's a gift)... seems to me that's a problem.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-18-2009, 10:39 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
With all due respect... what the hell are you talking about? It seems to me that if you presented Mark G. with a contract that said that you would pay him so much money, and then gave him a check for that amount, and when he took it to your bank to cash it he was only able to get the amount you promised him minus $5, one of you (either you or your bank) has committed fraud.

You're making no sense. If the scenario you describe did happen, Mark has an argument with the BANK, not me, if he doesn't like the fee. If he doesn't bank at my bank, he should take it to his own damn bank and cash it.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 08-18-2009, 11:38 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
If an employee brings a pay check to the bank that the business is using, the employee gets charged a service fee to cash the check if they don't have an account there.

Has this actually been confirmed as happening? I've never had nor have I heard of anyone ever being charged a fee for cashing any check drawn on an account by the bank holding the account. And I've cashed quite a few checks at both large and small banks.

Now I have had to show my photo ID (usually a drivers license from which they write down all pertinent info) and thumb or forefinger print with my endorsement on the back of the check.

As to whether it is legal to do so, especially with a payroll check, I would imagine it depends on the state. When in doubt call the Attorney General's office or Labor Department for your state.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-19-2009, 02:23 AM:

The way banks are regulated and inspected (especially THESE days), I'd highly doubt that a bank would knowingly charge a fee that was illegal in that state.

People just assume that banks are rolling in dough because they usually are in nice buildings, and all the people inside are well-dressed. In reality, they are just a business like any other: Trying to make a profit any way they can.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-19-2009, 04:10 AM:

Mike you are delusional if you thing a sign gives most any business any legal anything.

Again, I'd be curious if the issuing bank charging a fee on a payroll check to the employee has ever been tested up to the Supreme Court. I highly doubt it has because I don't see as the bank ever winning on that one. A check is a promissory note. The employer and the bank are the ones stating its value.

Now if the bank didn't issue the check, then it could charge what it wanted or refuse it all together...just like any other check cashing service. But if it is their check? That is one worth suing over. And a sign posted doesn't mean squat. Take some consumer law classes...you'd be amazed how little a sign in a business means. A sign is normally a first line of defense to try to shed responsibility and if the consumer buys into the sign, then the business saves themselves a lot of hassle.

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-19-2009, 11:30 AM:

Steve, I'm well aware that signs are meaningless and don't carry much legal weight, but you can bet that if a bank has a sign about a fee posted somewhere, they will also have a "policy" or "tariff" manual somewhere that will have all of the same details spelled out in excruciating detail and their butt will be fully covered.

Don't you think that if this was actually an issue worth suing over, somebody in this great lawsuit-happy land of ours wouldn't have done it by now?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-19-2009, 11:46 AM:

So by your logic, as long as you put a sign in your theater that your policy was to take back half of the pop corn from the large bucket when I present my coupon... that makes it OK?

And as far as "Why hasn't anyone sued yet?" ...

They have.

quote:

The law firm of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against U.S. Bank of California for charging employees of business payroll accountholders a $10 fee to cash their paychecks. Many of these employees are lower-paid workers who do not hold personal checking accounts and rely on their employers' banks to cash their checks.

"We are seeking an injunction to stop the bank from charging $10 per paycheck cashing fees without notifying its accountholders of potential adverse legal consequences, or at the very least, to require U.S. Bank to disclose these practices to current and future business customers," says Nicholas P. Roxborough, co-managing partner of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye who filed the lawsuit. "In the meantime, our client is reimbursing his employees who, to their knowledge, are being charged this additional fee-a practice that has not been disclosed by the bank to our client or other customers."

The plaintiff in the suit against U.S. Bank of California is Leae Asset Management, a granite, marble and recycling business that believes the bank's fees have placed the company in violation of Section 212 of the California Labor Code, which requires that paychecks 'be negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount.' The plaintiff is acting on behalf of other California employers in the state, many who have lower-paid workers living paycheck to paycheck.

"Our suit against U.S. Bank of California doesn't focus on whether or not a bank has the right to charge a check cashing fee, but it does strongly contend that a bank cannot do so without advising its clients of the legal consequences, and more specifically, that this practice may subject employers to liability of certain provisions of the Labor Code," explains Roxborough.

The Department of Industrial Relations, which is responsible for enforcing the Labor Code, has already concurred that this type of bank fees violates the California Labor Code, stating that it subjects employers to criminal prosecution and substantial penalties under Labor Code 215 and 225.

Based on the outcome of similar lawsuits filed by Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye over the past two years, Roxborough is confident the bank will reach a resolution and the right thing will be done for both consumers and the employer community. Lawsuits against Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank resulted in settlements benefiting tens of thousands of employers and employees throughout California.

It's interesting that the EMPLOYER is suing the bank because it believes that the bank's practice is putting them (the employer) in violation of California labor laws.

But that practice is strangely still going on - at least around here.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-19-2009, 01:17 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So by your logic, as long as you put a sign in your theater that your policy was to take back half of the pop corn from the large bucket when I present my coupon... that makes it OK?

Did you not read the article you posted? Or did you miss the part where the lawyers said that they are asking for the bank to disclose their actions rather than necessarily stop them?

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-19-2009, 01:34 PM:

quote: Mike J. Marshall
You're missing the point.

Not hardly. The check is from the account holder, not the bank. The bank is simply the repository for the account holder's funds and and acts as their agent. If what you say were true then the bank could be also held liable for overdrafts written by the account holder. Charging a fee is their option and does not constitute fraud, extortion, conspiracy or any other crime that I can think of. What I found out today while I was making a deposit, is that the account holder has the option to absorb the fee charged by the bank. Some do; most, I suppose, do not. Let's face reality; banks are business and will take whatever legal measures they see fit to enhance their bottom line.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 08-19-2009, 01:35 PM:

For the record I have checking and two savings accounts at my bank. I do all my business "online" unless I have a deposit that requires me to go there. I draw money via ATM...either from my bank or the local no-fee Wawa convenience store. My checking account is completely free of fees...they even mail a physical check for free when required. One of my savings accounts is fee-free and the other requires a minimum balance of $200 to avoid fees. I am very happy with them. Oddly, they are the same bank that Mark Marshall's wife works at and that he is posting about!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-19-2009, 01:58 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So by your logic, as long as you put a sign in your theater that your policy was to take back half of the pop corn from the large bucket when I present my coupon... that makes it OK?

I guess it would, if I were to do such a thing but since that's not the way the theatre business operates, the comparison doesn't make sense.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
And as far as "Why hasn't anyone sued yet?" ...

They have.

But did they win? That's the question. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but "winning" is the big variable of course. And like Chris pointed out, they're not trying to stop the charges, just fighting for better disclosure.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-19-2009, 02:27 PM:

FYI, the case was settled.

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=43&item=7286

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-19-2009, 02:30 PM:

If the bank lost then the employer would be compelled to move their account since the law requires that the employer pay with out discount

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-19-2009, 02:37 PM:

Banks can charge whatever fees they can get away with. Employers in all 50 states are required to pay you in full on pay day, and can not require you to open a bank account at a bank you do not choose. It is time people started suing employers who participate in this banking scam. Yes, I know that can be difficult, but until this happens, nothing will change.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-19-2009, 02:56 PM:

Yep... they're also required to pay you in a form that is exchangeable for US cash ON DEMAND - which means I do *NOT* have to do anything else but present the check to the financial institution that the check is drawn on, and receive the amount of cash that is equal to the face value of the check. I do not have to pay $5, or sing the National Anthem, or anything else. Seems to me that requiring me to do so is illegal.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-19-2009, 03:26 PM:

That "settlement" still doesn't allow the employee to cash the pay check. Just another ploy by the bank to collect more fees from people who can't manage a checking account, which is the very reason they want cash.

The goddamned banks would rather do anything than be honest. Bandits aren't the robbers, the banks are.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-20-2009, 11:39 AM:

The problem with this whole "The banks have to give me cash on demand" thing is that you guys are forgetting that even if you normally deposit a check, 100% of that isn't put into your account immediately for withdrawl due to the fact that they are allowed to put a hold on it for the time that it takes to verify the check is real. Though that wait time has decreased now since they've got electronic ways to check.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-20-2009, 12:41 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
"The banks have to give me cash on demand" thing

No, the bank the check is DRAWN ON has to give me cash on demand. If I take it to a different bank and deposit it into an account, then yes, I have to wait for my bank to demand the money from the issuing bank. That request goes through the Federal Reserve system and sometimes takes a few days.

The banks have methods of immediately knowing if a check drawn from their corporate customers' accounts is real or not because they already have a record of the check existing. If they're unsure, they can make a phone call, they can take my thumb print and two forms of ID so they can find me if there's a problem. But they have to cash it... unless the funds aren't there of course, then the company has a problem!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-20-2009, 01:38 PM:

A couple of things here...

The reason the suit was filed was it was bringing the employers into legal hassle (not complying with payment in full for services)...it was the employers who were, in effect, bringing the law suit.

As such, the employer was to be given the information on any such fees that might cause them to not be in compliance and hence the settlement (not a decision, mind you) was to come up with a means to keep the employers from having legal action against them.

Now, if the employer is given notification of such a fee in the future, it could be their option to move the account or absorb the fee since the employee is entitled to their full pay amount, under the law.

The problem with a $5 or similar fee for an employee is that suing over $5 or $130 to $260/year is one that the lawyer fees will be prohibitive...after all the person that does not maintain a checking account of their own is not likely to have the financial means to initiate this sort of law suit. It used to be said that it is bad to get into a writing match with a newspaper that buys their ink by the 55-gallon drum or words to that effect. The same could be true with a bank that deals in cash all the time.

I repeat that I'd be very surprised if this ever was decided in the bank's favor at the supreme court level. Banks are entitled to charge fees, for sure (and they do and will). But a check bearing the signed name of an account holder (and a payroll check at that) and the issuing bank, the bank is indeed devaluing the check. As for insufficient funds...that is another matter all together...the bank isn't refusing to issue the money that is there...they are stating that the money isn't there. That brings about another whole litany of issues with respect to labor law and payment.

Finally...I believe an employee may always require to be paid in cash. It is the only form of legal tender in the USA. The fact that most nobody does it for a whole list of reasons (it can be a big pain in the ass to move that money around and keep track on the accounting side and will likely do nobody any good). The employee is entitled to be paid in full, period. Most folks go for direct deposit nowadays, if available. No fees (in fact, some employers will try to charge a fee for writing a paper check), and the money moves that day...no need for getting the check, endorsing, depositing, waiting for it to clear before drawing upon it.

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2009, 01:53 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I do not have to pay $5, or sing the National Anthem, or anything else. Seems to me that requiring me to do so is illegal.

That's a good thing about this country. It takes more than "seems to me" to make something a requirement!

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-20-2009, 02:10 PM:

If you had the choice of singing the Star Spangled Banner or paying the 5 bucks, which would you choose? We'll assume you already know the words and the tune.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-20-2009, 08:11 PM:

I might have to charge THEM if I were going to give a rousing performance of the Star Spangled Banner.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-21-2009, 04:24 AM:

Funny story about this, my father is in a similar situation. The place that he works draws their checks from Wells Fargo. Since my dad refuses to have a bank account anymore, whenever he goes to cash his check not only does he have to pay $5, but he has to give his fingerprint too (electronic pad).

So, yeah, whatever, I guess that's fine.

So one day he finally gives in to the cashiers sales pitch and agrees to open a savings account. After filling out the paperwork etc. the person at the bank tells him his credit history has a few 'hic-ups' (he has a lot of unpaid medical debt from having his appendix removed and a few other things, no insurance). Because of these 'hic-ups' he'll have to open a checking account along with his savings account.

Now say what?

Lets follow the logic here; my dad has bad credit, so Wells Fargo decides its too risky to let him deposit money in a savings account (?!?) so to make things more secure he must have a checking account, which will let him give people pieces of paper for payment with no more assurance he has the money to pay than Wells Fargo's good reputation.

Bullshit.

I never asked, but I'm willing to bet that checking account was not of the 'free' variety. If you want to get even more tin-foil hatty, I'd say Wells Fargo was counting on him bouncing checks and thus letting them charge him overdraft fees.

Needless to say he did not open an account.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-21-2009, 09:47 AM:

As an employee, you do not need to sue your employer over this. A formal complaint to your states department of labor will require them to take action on your behalf, and it will cost you nothing.

As to actually suing, while it is true that each individual case does not add up to a lot of money, a class action against a large employer would.

Personally, I direct deposit into my existing bank account, which works fine for me, but to each their own...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-21-2009, 10:09 AM:

As an aside can somebody explain why there are so many people that don't have any type of bank/credit union account? My parents opened a savings account for me when I was very young. I opened a checking account in high school when I got a part time job.

I'm not trying to be an ass I've just never understood the prominence of check cashing stores and the long "non-account holder" lines on pay day. There's a zillion free checking accounts with little to no minimum balance out there so why wouldn't somebody have one?

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 08-21-2009, 10:37 AM:

Most banks do credit checks on customers opening checking accounts and won't let you open a checking account if you have a low credit score. I'm surprised that a bank wouldn't let you open a savings account without opening a checking account, too; I've usually heard that story in reverse (so they can take the overdraft fees out of your savings account). Also, banks tend to require a minimum balance to avoid fees, and not everyone can afford that. Of course, some people also don't trust banks or don't want anyone keeping track of their money, for whatever reason.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-21-2009, 10:51 AM:

I have a brother in law who had a career in the banking industry and had a fairly high position says not to trust them or believe anything. He also never kept anything in the free account they require all employees to have for direct deposit. He discovered thru a good friend he had in I.T. that while it is unlawful for them to use the access that upper management was able to view all transactions in employees personal accounts. Every payday he transferred all but one dollar to another bank.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-21-2009, 06:20 PM:

Don't you always have to pay a fee when you cash a check at a bank where you do not have an account at?

Besides, anyone with at least $10k at a bank should never have to pay fees for anything. If you let a bank borrow your money, loan out 9-10 times more than what you have loaned them and charge 10% interest on money that doesn't even exist while you are lucky to get 1%, and you still pay fees, you are an idiot and deserve to pay them. The only type of banking fees I have paid in the past 10 years have been fees for buying and selling stocks and mutual funds. So no, I do not demand any services for free, I allow the bank to make money off of my money and I expect to not have to pay anything for giving them that privilege.