|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:26 pm Post subject: McDonalds tries to pay workers in debit cards |
 |
|
McD's worker sues b/c she was paid by debit card
| Quote: |
Gunshannon, 27, of Dallas Township, worked at McDonald's Restaurant on the Dallas Highway from April 24 to May 15. When she received her first paycheck, enclosed was a Chase Bank debit card with instructions on how to use it and the fees attached.
Her future earnings would be deposited into the debit card account and she could access her money from there. Gunshannon never signed the card and when she returned to work she asked her supervisor if she could be paid by check or by direct deposit. She was told the card was the only option.
Gunshannon, a single mother of one daughter, quit her job at McDonald's and went to see an attorney, Mike Cefalo of West Pittston. A class-action lawsuit was filed Thursday in Luzerne County Court by Cefalo on behalf of Gunshannon and other employees, seeking damages, fees and costs.
. . .
Gunshannon said she didn't sign the card and chose to not enroll in the payroll system offered because she felt the fees would be exorbitant and actually drop her earnings below minimum wage.
She was to be paid about $7.44 per hour - her paystub didn't list her hourly rate. Minimum wage is $7.25.
According to the complaint filed, the JP Morgan Chase payroll card lists several fees, including a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry, 75 cents per online bill payment and $15 for lost/stolen card.
Gunshannon said she had taken her concerns to the main office of the franchise holder - Albert and Carol Mueller, trading as McDonald's, in Clarks Summit. She was told that the card was the only option, she said. |
Hideous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| People have been getting gouged the same way in certain states with regards to unemployment benefits as well, which is arguably worse, because while you can at least leave your job at McDonald's, if you need unemployment benefits (or child support, or whatever), you're not likely in any position to leave a state which has sold you out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is disgusting. the card charged fees for useage.
to be fair though this was not Mdonalds this was a franchisee doing this.
But Mickey d's needs to take a stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The debit cards are a common way for employers to pay illegals or people without bank accounts. A huge chunk of the American underclass does not have bank accounts (around 20% of cities like Miami and Detroit).
Fox is right. JPM has made a killing from charging fees on people receiving welfare. It's very cynical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deja
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why are debit cards a common way to pay illegals? Doesn't that mean another trail??
Holy fees, BTW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deja wrote: |
| Why are debit cards a common way to pay illegals? Doesn't that mean another trail?? |
A trail going where? Some business owner picks up a prepaid debit card, a week later, it gets spent. It's not like you need to show an ID to use them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Utterly shameless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A modernized version of sharecropping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Deja wrote: |
| Why are debit cards a common way to pay illegals? Doesn't that mean another trail?? |
A trail going where? Some business owner picks up a prepaid debit card, a week later, it gets spent. It's not like you need to show an ID to use them. |
Exactly. They have no name on them other than the employer and have the amount written on the card. Scratch the back and the PIN appears. They're becoming more common. The cost per card is less than 3$.
The only real issue I have with the OP is the service charges (unless proper banking is being denied to employers). JPM/Chase etc are sticking it to a demo that is completely powerless and captive. It would be nice if the poor were not slapped around at every turn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is very risky to pay your employees minimum wage. Many employers do not calculate overtime properly, and unless there is some 'slack' wage given to the employee which buffers the employer from miscalculations, they are liable for liquidated damages of triple back pay and attorney's fee of the claimant.
Workforce Management Whitepaper (.pdf)
| Quote: |
Example: Employee has an hourly rate of $8.00 and worked 46 hours in the workweek
The common method: 40 x $8.00 = $320.00; $8.00 x 1.5 = $12.00; 6 x
$12.00 = $72.00; $320.00 + $72.00 = $392.00
The FLSA method: 46 x $8.00 = $368.00 / 46=$8.00 x .5 =
$4.00; 6 x $4.00 = $24.00; $368.00 + $24.00 = $392.00
In this case the common method and the FLSA method would
result in the same gross wages for the employee, $392.00, since
there are no other payments included to affect the regular rate of
pay. Either method would be acceptable in an audit situation.
Now let's do the same example again but this time adding a nondiscretionary bonus of $10.
Common Method: 40 x $8.00 = $320.00; $8.00 x 1.5= $12.00; 6 x
$12.00 = $72.00; $320.00 + $72.00 = $392.00 + $10.00 = $402.00
FLSA Method: 46 x $8.00 = $368.00 + $10.00 = $378.00; $378 / 46 =
$8.21; $8.21 / 2 = $4.10; $4.10 x 6 = $24.60; $378.00 + $24.60 = $402.60 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deja
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Deja wrote: |
| Why are debit cards a common way to pay illegals? Doesn't that mean another trail?? |
A trail going where? Some business owner picks up a prepaid debit card, a week later, it gets spent. It's not like you need to show an ID to use them. |
But there is more of a trail than with cash - cash just has a trail of being taken out of the account. Debit cards have a trail of where it was used for payment. Why wouldn't they be using cash instead for illegals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deja wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Deja wrote: |
| Why are debit cards a common way to pay illegals? Doesn't that mean another trail?? |
A trail going where? Some business owner picks up a prepaid debit card, a week later, it gets spent. It's not like you need to show an ID to use them. |
But there is more of a trail than with cash - cash just has a trail of being taken out of the account. Debit cards have a trail of where it was used for payment. Why wouldn't they be using cash instead for illegals? |
There are no names associated with the debit cards.
And do you really think illegals just get paid in cash? Many get paid by regular paychecks (and get deductions for SS and Medicare, which is a gain for those two programs since they won't pay out to those same people) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mildly related through the medium of common citizens being screwed over by corporate interests. I'm sure we're all tired of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions which screw the common American, so for a change of pace, how about a 5-3 Supreme Court decision which screws the common American.
| Quote: |
Details: American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Earlier today the Court decided that an arbitration agreement that precludes arbitration brought by a class of plaintiffs is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the proposed class of plaintiffs proves that it would be economically infeasible for individuals to pursue arbitration on their own.
The case arose out of a dispute between American Express (“Amex”) and a group of merchants who accept American Express cards for payment. The merchants claimed that Amex violated federal antitrust laws by using its monopoly power in the credit card market to charge inflated fees. The merchants had an agreement with Amex requiring all disputes to be resolved by arbitration, and that agreement provided that there was “no right or authority” to arbitrate on a “class action basis.” The merchants, however, formed a class and sued, arguing that the cost to an individual merchant to arbitrate vastly exceeded the potential recovery possible, and that Amex had used its monopoly power to compel arbitration agreements that preclude the enforcement of congressionally created rights.
Amex moved to compel individual arbitration of each dispute under the agreement and the FAA. The merchants fought that motion with testimony from an expert witness who testified that the costs of proving each antitrust claim (at least several hundred thousand dollars) would dwarf the potential recoveries of individual actions (roughly $12,000-38,000). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the suits. After several years of litigation, including one “grant, vacate, and remand” order from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit held that individual arbitration could not be compelled.
In a five-to-three decision, the Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) holds that the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate arbitration agreements simply because the cost of individual arbitration may be high. According to the Court, nothing in federal law guarantees plaintiffs “an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim.” Moreover, the Court found that the judicially created “effective vindication” exception to the FAA could not be applied simply because individual arbitrations are more costly to litigate than they are often worth.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to underscore that the result was required by the plain meaning of the FAA. Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer) dissented, arguing that the FAA does not preclude exceptions to arbitration agreements when necessary to enforce congressionally created rights. Justice Sotomayor was recused from the case because she was a judge on the panel that decided the case in the Second Circuit. |
The Roberts Court is doing long term damage to our nation, and really all we can do is hope Scalia gets around to dying soon. What a political system, where political remedies revolve around hoping another human being dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Would it be possible for her to make a one time withdrawal, at the cost of the 5 dollar withdrawal fee, from the bank and then put the money in a bank of her choosing? Aside from the minor nuisance of dealing with the debit requirement has the person ever dealt with the things that temp. agencies can do to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
