McDonald's Worker Says She Was Required to Receive Pay on Fee-Laden Debit Card

[Corki]

A bit of a bother?

I would have to go to an ATM, withdraw the entire amount, take that to somewhere that sells money orders. Pay for the money order. Mail the money order. Wait for it to arrive at my credit union and be posted. THEN I could use my paycheck.

See, not everyone lives next door to their bank/credit union. Some of us live miles and miles away. Once you get into a credit union, most people stay with it. No fee checking, free checks and lower interest rates on loans make it worth it.

A prepaid debit card is not a paycheck. And I shouldn’t have to ask around to find out how to get my money. Nor should I have to pay to get my money.

But that’s your choice. If you got paid by cash and did not have a local bank you would have the same steps. My credit union is across the country too. But I could have, if I CHOSE to, opened up a local CU or bank account.

Do we expect the employer to pay for all of the possible choices an employee might choose as to what to do with the money after they are paid? Or do we expect the employer to process payroll in an efficient and cost effective manner and to pay employees in a form that is a very good option for the vast majority of them? Getting paid is not a custom order.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Or do we expect the employer to process payroll in an efficient and cost effective manner and to pay employees in a form that is a very good option for the vast majority of them? Getting paid is not a custom order.

Of course, the real question is whether we expect employer’s to obey the law? According to the way the law is written, the employee has a legitimate dispute. The way the law is written this is not a slam dunk in favor the employer. The employee has no obligation to make things easy for the employer if the law says otherwise.

 

[Corki]

Wow, Sam, get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

She worked three weeks, and didn’t want to have to pay fees to get her wages. They refused to pay her any other way. She quit.

If McDonald’s wants to put their story out there, they are welcome.

She worked three weeks, **got paid **and didn’t want to bother to learn how to get her money without paying fees. So, she quit. The company refused to run a separate payroll in order to pay her differently than all of the other employees.

Frankly, if she couldn’t figure out how to get her money out without paying a fee, McDonald’s is probably not so sad that she isn’t doing cash handling for them.

 

[Corki]

Of course, the real question is whether we expect employer’s to obey the law? According to the way the law is written, the employee has a legitimate dispute. The way the law is written this is not a slam dunk in favor the employer. The employee has no obligation to make things easy for the employer if the law says otherwise.

Even her own attorney said he wasn’t sure that what the employer did was against the law. The law was written before the existence of debit cards. There is a lot of legal precedence about the acceptability of debit card payments but probably not much about debit card payroll. Direct deposit isn’t mentioned in the law either but I know from personal experience that thousands of employees in that state have been paid that way for decades. If the lawyers don’t know, you wouldn’t expect a small business owner to know. I am sure he wasn’t the first business in the state to use this type of payroll. It’s a test case for this attorney. If he wins, he can line up a bunch more people who want to sue.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Even her own attorney said he wasn’t sure that what the employer did was against the law. The law was written before the existence of debit cards. There is a lot of legal precedence about the acceptability of debit card payments but probably not much about debit card payroll. Direct deposit isn’t mentioned in the law either but I know from personal experience that thousands of employees in that state have been paid that way for decades. If the lawyers don’t know, you wouldn’t expect a small business owner to know. I am sure he wasn’t the first business in the state to use this type of payroll. It’s a test case for this attorney. If he wins, he can line up a bunch more people who want to sue.

Like I said, it clearly is a legitimate dispute, at least according to the way the law is written.

 

[fix]

Frankly, if she couldn’t figure out how to get her money out without paying a fee, McDonald’s is probably not so sad that she isn’t doing cash handling for them.

Is this not really the basic issue here? Is it that she was bound to have a fee to obtain her paycheck or is it that she was ignorant of how to use the card?

 

[SamH]

Of course, the real question is whether we expect employer’s to obey the law? According to the way the law is written, the employee has a legitimate dispute. The way the law is written this is not a slam dunk in favor the employer. The employee has no obligation to make things easy for the employer if the law says otherwise.

Everyone keeps talking about “the law” but no one seems to have a link to it.

According to USA TODAY:

In a statement to the Times Leader, the Muellers said they value their employees and want to provide the best possible work environment for them.

State officials have endorsed payroll cards as a legal form of wage payment, according to the American Payroll Association, the Citizens’ Voice reported.

usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/17/pa-mcdonalds-sued-payroll-cards/2430917/

Oh snap.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Everyone keeps talking about “the law” but no one seems to have a link to it.

You seem to be factually challenged today. First, you claim that I called the employer greedy and then said that nobody linked to the law. Actually I did in post 44.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10883060&postcount=44

 

[maryjk]

But that’s your choice. If you got paid by cash and did not have a local bank you would have the same steps. My credit union is across the country too. But I could have, if I CHOSE to, opened up a local CU or bank account.

Do we expect the employer to pay for all of the possible choices an employee might choose as to what to do with the money after they are paid? Or do we expect the employer to process payroll in an efficient and cost effective manner and to pay employees in a form that is a very good option for the vast majority of them? Getting paid is not a custom order.

No, but they do have to follow the law. And that is the question here, what is the law. Not if the woman is a moron because she couldn’t figure out how to get her money without paying fees.

I have never worked a job where I was paid in cash. Well, not since I have been an adult. I have always been paid via check or direct deposit.

I am sure that these prepaid debit cards are big business. And I am sure that McDonald’s gets a great price on them. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised if Chase paid McDonald’s to use the cards. But if they are running direct deposit for their managers, they can certainly run it for employees.

 

[SamH]

You seem to be factually challenged today. First, you claim that I called the employer greedy and then said that nobody linked to the law. Actually I did in post 44.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10883060&postcount=44

But you missed the part of the law that says bank cards are a legal form of payment. Given the thousands (millions?) of people paid in PN via payroll card I figured you would know you were incorrect. My mistake.

 

[stinkcat_14]

But you missed the part of the law that says bank cards are a legal form of payment.

They are legal with the employee’s permission. So like I said, it is a legitimate dispute.

State officials have endorsed payroll cards as a legal form of wage payment, according to the American Payroll Association, the Citizens’ Voice reported.

But in a 2008 letter to the trade association, the state Department of Labor and Industry advised employers to get an employee’s permission before paying wages with payroll cards or through direct deposit, the newspaper reported.

 

[Corki]

No, but they do have to follow the law. And that is the question here, what is the law. Not if the woman is a moron because she couldn’t figure out how to get her money without paying fees.

I have never worked a job where I was paid in cash. Well, not since I have been an adult. I have always been paid via check or direct deposit.

I am sure that these prepaid debit cards are big business. And I am sure that McDonald’s gets a great price on them. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised if Chase paid McDonald’s to use the cards. But if they are running direct deposit for their managers, they can certainly run it for employees.

First of all, the law as quoted is as silent about direct deposit as it is about debit cards.

And it’s not that easy to run direct deposit for a high-turnover work force. Direct deposit doesn’t even take effect usually until the second or third pay period after an employee is hired. So you still need a quick and secure way to pay them up until that point.

 

[SamH]

No, but they do have to follow the law. .

According to payroll experts they are following the law.

 

[stinkcat_14]

First of all, the law as quoted is as silent about direct deposit as it is about debit cards.

Which is why the lawsuit is a very good thing. It will bring some clarity to the issue, which is one of the functions of our court system.

 

[SamH]

And it’s not that easy to run direct deposit for a high-turnover work force. Direct deposit doesn’t even take effect usually until the second or third pay period after an employee is hired. So you still need a quick and secure way to pay them up until that point.

And that was the case here. According to USA TODAY she got a paycheck and the payroll card on the first payday. We do the same thing if the employee refuses or neglects to give us a bank account to direct deposit their pay into.

 

[Corki]

Which is why the lawsuit is a very good thing. It will bring some clarity to the issue, which is one of the functions of our court system.

There are better ways to get clarity to the law (such as engaging the state Attorney General’s office for clarification language) that don’t clog the courts or line attorneys pockets.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There are better ways to get clarity to the law (such as engaging the state Attorney General’s office for clarification language) that don’t clog the courts or line attorneys pockets.

Lawsuits on the other hand, preserve the plaintiffs rights better though. I don’t know how many AG offices you have dealt with, but it could easily take much longer that way. I am not sure why the plaintiff would have an incentive to go that route.

 

[Corki]

Lawsuits on the other hand, preserve the plaintiffs rights better though. I don’t know how many AG offices you have dealt with, but it could easily take much longer that way. I am not sure why the plaintiff would have an incentive to go that route.

Her incentive would be that she could remain employed, collecting her inconvenient pay on her debit card, while waiting for the AG to answer. And this lawsuit, is likely to take a very long time too. If she wins, which is a long shot, what will she get? One or two week’s wages? The punitive side of this kind of suit, which doesn’t involve discrimination, is often in the form of a fine paid to the state not the employee and an order to change policy on the part of the employer.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Her incentive would be that she could remain employed, collecting her inconvenient pay on her debit card, while waiting for the AG to answer. And this lawsuit, is likely to take a very long time too. If she wins, which is a long shot, what will she get? One or two week’s wages? The punitive side of this kind of suit, which doesn’t involve discrimination, is often in the form of a fine paid to the state not the employee and an order to change policy on the part of the employer.

And of course, the law will be clarified, which is a good thing. And if she found another job that paid her with a check, she could still get paid and have her rights protected by filing the lawsuit. We can blame the state legislature for this one. They don’t update their laws, then they find that people sue based on the law as it is written. Not terribly surprising if you ask me.