Petition - McDonald's: Stop paying employees with debit cards loaded with fees

[DamianTV]

https://www.change.org/petitions/mcdonald-s-stop-paying-employees-with-debit-cards-loaded-with-fees?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=28833&alert_id=XMiZhxNWjN_AvGaayiiSH5

I am only posting this because this is exactly what will be coming for the rest of us eventually if we allow ANY company to get away with this kind of Robber Baron behavior.

[jkr]

COMPANY
STORE

[Dr.3D]

Just get the money out of the card and eliminate it for doing transactions.

[69360]

Don't work there if you don't like the pay terms. Better yet, don't work for any mega corporation. Even better yet, don't work for anyone.

[Keith and stuff]

There was a proposed bill to allow this in New Hampshire this year. It was defeated. Does anyone know which states allow this? It doesn't make sense that a company in a competitive industry, like McDonalds, would do this.

[DamianTV]

Just get the money out of the card and eliminate it for doing transactions.

That tells the employer that what they are doing, screwing over the people that can afford to get screwed over the least, is totally acceptable. Its the same thing as signing up for a Supermarket Club Card and giving a fake name. They dont give a shit about your name, but people are fully okay with giving them all their real data. Again, it tells the company that people are A-Okay with anything the company does, regardless of how moral it is.

---


Don't work there if you don't like the pay terms. Better yet, don't work for any mega corporation. Even better yet, don't work for anyone.

Some people dont really have a choice. Eat, or die. Work at McDonalds for a pittance of what you need to survive, or starve. There are very few real jobs out there. Most of the jobs that have been created since 2008 have been Part Time jobs.

For the record, normally, I'd fully agree with you. It really should be the way that people express how dissatisfied they are with a company. But people are powerless, and there are still no jobs out there. The Law is supposed to protect the people from abuses and infringements by others, including big ass corporations. But the Law is no longer protecting the people at all. The Law itself has become parasitic by ignoring the wrongdoings of mega corporations and especially banks. Since both mega corps and banks are involved in this situation, it is no wonder that Govt is turning a Blind Eye.

Off topic, I know that I decry the actions or lack of actions by the Govt in nearly every post I make. I do believe that some form of Govt is necessary, but it is in the extremes of both too much and too little Govt that we have problems. The proper limitation of Govt makes everyone more free. So with that, I say that this is one of the rare times that Govt should do something about the actions of a Criminal Corporation, simply because their employees dont have any Opportunity to take care of this problem the way a Free Market would (because we dont have a Free Market). That goes for both McDonalds and their Paycheck Ripoff Bank for behavior akin to Robber Barons.

In essence, I'd support making it illegal for any employer to require employees to be paid with ANY form of payment where ANY fees may be attached in order to garner access to the money that any employee has earned. Get a check? Cant charge you for the check. Got Direct Deposit? Cant charge fees for having your check deposited, by the employer. There actions imply that Corporations have a right to charge you a Private Payroll Tax, and that is Criminal because there are Victims. We cant dispute the Criminality based on how much is deprived from the victim, but only that it is happening, and thus, acknowledge and define the action as being Criminal.

The actions (or lack thereof) build the foundation for our actions tomorrow.

If we allow any company to do this, the people will be powerless to fight against it. This needs to be defined as nothing short of Unlawful.

[presence]

there is a legal term for this behavior and its outlawed in most states... brb








--------------------------------
here we are...


In California Law


Indemnify;


2802. (a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
obedience to the directions of the employer,






Definition of INDEMNIFY

1
: to secure (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secure[2]) against hurt, loss, or damage

2
: to make compensation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compensation) to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage







Sign Petition

293,177 of 300,000 supporters

wow

[luctor-et-emergo]

I'll boycott Mcdonalds in the coming future albeit I'm in Europe so I'm not even sure if they get paid on debit cards here...
But the food sucks, so I'm in. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

There was a proposed bill to allow this in New Hampshire this year. It was defeated.

Good.

[silverhandorder]

These debit cards are probably good for minimum wage employees. I suspect it is a way to get around the minimum wage which is a great thing for all the employees who might find them selves out of a job. I also just asked my sister who is 15 and works at McDonald's and they get paid normally either direct deposit or check.

[DamianTV]

These debit cards are probably good for minimum wage employees. I suspect it is a way to get around the minimum wage which is a great thing for all the employees who might find them selves out of a job. I also just asked my sister who is 15 and works at McDonald's and they get paid normally either direct deposit or check.

Im glad your sister gets paid normally.

Please explain how these debit cards are good. Are they only good for Minimum Wage Employees or for ALL employees? How can they be good for one group and not another? How does it get around minimum wage, and why would they find themselves out of a job? Please explain your thoughts...

[amy31416]

If it's on a debit card, does that mean that the gov't can confiscate at will?

I don't mind employees having it as an option, but it seems like it would give them practically unfettered access to poor people's money, not to mention track purchases/withdrawals.

[Keith and stuff]

Im glad your sister gets paid normally.

Please explain how these debit cards are good. Are they only good for Minimum Wage Employees or for ALL employees? How can they be good for one group and not another? How does it get around minimum wage, and why would they find themselves out of a job? Please explain your thoughts...

I think the point being made is some people aren't worth min. wage to McDonalds. Because of the fees, people might now make 50cent to a dollar an hour or something below min. wage. And because of that, McDonalds thing it is worth it to give these folks job. I could be wrong on the interpretation.

Also, I'm not saying that I agree. It seems like a privacy violation to me.

[silverhandorder]

Im glad your sister gets paid normally.

Please explain how these debit cards are good. Are they only good for Minimum Wage Employees or for ALL employees? How can they be good for one group and not another? How does it get around minimum wage, and why would they find themselves out of a job? Please explain your thoughts...

There must be a reason why they are doing this. If I was a betting man I would say it bring down the cost of their payroll. Which means that they can afford to pay people w/e they are currently paying. Since the main gripe with the cards is that they have fees attached to them, this means that they are offsetting the cost to be on the employees. That lowers the minimum wage without getting noticed by government goons.

Can they stay in business and not do this? Probably. But we won't know for sure.

Anyways these type of jobs should not be career choices or something you support a family on.

[VIDEODROME]

Strange. I've been paid through a card and it wasn't that bad. It had fees, but only for services if I chose to use them like a pay advance. I was a Trucker paid with my COMDATA Fuel card.

Many times, if I used a service at a Truck Stop while getting fuel the fee would even be waived. I could also direct deposit money from the card to my personal account through a phone menu. This kind of thing can be very convenient but it sounds like Chase is screwing people over instead.

[Cowlesy]

I feel like there is more to this story. McDonald's is a gigantic mega corporation that employees hundreds of thousands of people probably between checks, direct deposits and whatever this debit-card thing is. Also, they would not risk some massive class action litigation for skimming nickels off their employees with fees that could be adjudicated to ridiculous amounts.

The whole thing just sounds fishy to me.

Sorry, to expand: It's just like the media and this Trayvon case. If you only listened to the media, you'd be aghast at what happened that these evil man gunned down this kid skipping home with skittles and iced tea and got away with it.

change.org petitions are sometimes good, but usually stink of leftist BS.

[DamianTV]

I feel like there is more to this story. McDonald's is a gigantic mega corporation that employees hundreds of thousands of people probably between checks, direct deposits and whatever this debit-card thing is. Also, they would not risk some massive class action litigation for skimming nickels off their employees with fees that could be adjudicated to ridiculous amounts.

The whole thing just sounds fishy to me.

No offense, but have you ever collected Unemployment? They do the same damn thing. And it isnt just nickel and dime here, its like a buck or two bucks for more than 4 transactions per month. That doesnt include non Bank ATM fees (using Wells Fargo at BofA ATM).

[Cowlesy]

No offense, but have you ever collected Unemployment? They do the same damn thing. And it isnt just nickel and dime here, its like a buck or two bucks for more than 4 transactions per month. That doesnt include non Bank ATM fees (using Wells Fargo at BofA ATM).

These companies generate way too much profit to try and sucker entry level employees for nickels or dollars of hundreds of dollars. It'd be completely irrational. I poked around the change.org site and can't find anything that makes me think that McDonald's is some Snidely Whiplash, trying to milk its employees. Do we know if these employees refuse to get bank accounts? Or were they offered and refused a paper check? The evidence on the site just seems tenuous. Sorry, I'd be open to more evidence but this just looks irrational and weak. Is it perhaps some dumb franchisee doing it, making it a localized issue?

[Pericles]

I feel like there is more to this story. McDonald's is a gigantic mega corporation that employees hundreds of thousands of people probably between checks, direct deposits and whatever this debit-card thing is. Also, they would not risk some massive class action litigation for skimming nickels off their employees with fees that could be adjudicated to ridiculous amounts.

The whole thing just sounds fishy to me.

Sorry, to expand: It's just like the media and this Trayvon case. If you only listened to the media, you'd be aghast at what happened that these evil man gunned down this kid skipping home with skittles and iced tea and got away with it.

change.org petitions are sometimes good, but usually stink of leftist BS.

I would suspect that this is the policy of one franchisee - I'm just speculating.

[Keith and stuff]

Perhaps a related story?

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/mcdonald-s-franchisees-ditch-fee-laden-debit-cards-as-pay-1.1514163


McDonald's franchisees ditch fee-laden debit cards as pay
By Bob Kalinowski (Staff Writer)
Published: July 2, 2013

You can now have it your way at McDonald's.

Your pay, that is.

The owners of 16 of the chain's local restaurants succ*umbed Monday to the pressure of a lawsuit and mounting negative publicity - including a front-page report in The New York Times - and said they would end the controversial practice of only paying employees with fee-laden debit cards.

The 16 regional McDonald's stores owned by Albert and Carol Mueller of Clarks Summit will now give employees the choice of being paid by check, direct deposit or payroll card, a spokeswoman for the company said Monday, hours after the Times article appeared.

West Pittston attorney Michael Cefalo, who filed the class-action lawsuit, said it's clear the lawsuit and negative national attention finally pushed the local owners to do the right thing.

"They're moving in a direction they should have been moving in all along. We're happy in a sense, gratified in a sense, but it doesn't alter the lawsuit," said Mr. Cefalo.

The lawsuit hastened a national focus on the growing use of the payroll cards by companies attempting to limit payroll expenses.

Mr. Cefalo sued the company on behalf of Natalie Gunshannon, 27, of Dallas Twp., a former employee of the Shavertown McDonald's who claimed the mandatory use of the cards violated state law. In most cases, the cards, issued by J.P. Morgan Chase, carry fees for withdrawals, online bill payments, balance inquiries and other transactions.

After Mr. Cefalo filed the lawsuit, the U.S. attorney's office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said it had asked the U.S. Labor Department to examine the practice. About 150 current and former McDonald's workers have joined the lawsuit, Mr. Cefalo said Monday.

In previous statements, the Muellers said they strived to obey all laws governing employee pay. An attorney for the franchisees defended the practice of using the cards, saying there are ways to avoid fees, namely through withdrawing money at Visa-member banks.

By Monday, the pressure to pay employees through traditional, less fee-heavy methods, had reached a critical mass and the Muellers relented.

"An important part of our value system has always been to provide our employees with convenient, free and immediate access to their pay," Christina Mueller-Curran, spokeswoman for Albert and Carol Mueller Limited Partners, said. "By expanding the options our employees have to receive their wages they will be better able to meet their individual financial needs and preferences."

Mr. Cefalo said he will continue to push the lawsuit through the legal system because it seeks justice for vulnerable, low-wage workers who were forced to be paid by debit card. In addition to repayment of any fees paid, Mr. Cefalo said he wants punitive damages assessed against the local owners. He plans to take the case to trial if necessary.

"We're going to find out the relationship (between the Muellers and J.P. Morgan Chase). We're going to find where the fees were going," Mr. Cefalo said. "We have a bank that is squeezing them because an employer is making them used a debit card. That's just not fair."

[angelatc]

https://www.change.org/petitions/mcdonald-s-stop-paying-employees-with-debit-cards-loaded-with-fees?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=28833&alert_id=XMiZhxNWjN_AvGaayiiSH5

I am only posting this because this is exactly what will be coming for the rest of us eventually if we allow ANY company to get away with this kind of Robber Baron behavior.

This is stupid. If you think that I'll ever lobby to make the freaking government force business to do ANYTHING, you haven't been paying attention. Don't like how they pay you? Then don't freaking work there!

Besides, it's just a ploy to get our names and addresses so the left wing can send us inflammatory emails.

The case we discussed is already settled. State law already dictated that they have to offer check or direct deposit, so they opted to comply. Federal law says te employee has to be able to get the funds without paying any fees already.

And the McDonald's card did indeed give the liberal entitlement Princess a free visit to a cashier or ATM once per pay period.

God, I hate liberals.

[angelatc]

These companies generate way too much profit to try and sucker entry level employees for nickels or dollars of hundreds of dollars. It'd be completely irrational. I poked around the change.org site and can't find anything that makes me think that McDonald's is some Snidely Whiplash, trying to milk its employees. Do we know if these employees refuse to get bank accounts? Or were they offered and refused a paper check? The evidence on the site just seems tenuous. Sorry, I'd be open to more evidence but this just looks irrational and weak. Is it perhaps some dumb franchisee doing it, making it a localized issue?

That's exactly what it was - a franchisee trying to save money. But the tone deaf anti-business faction of the forums won't acknowledge that the woman who filed the suit actually was able to get her money without paying a fee.

[angelatc]

If it's on a debit card, does that mean that the gov't can confiscate at will?

I don't mind employees having it as an option, but it seems like it would give them practically unfettered access to poor people's money, not to mention track purchases/withdrawals.


Again when the liberals are screeching, it's usually disinformation. The cards don't give you any more or less access to money than any bank account would. The card holder had the option of going to a counter or an ATM once per paycheck to withdraw the entire amount without paying a fee, same as a check. It's not McDonald's doing this, it was one franchise in PA, and they were already in violation of both state and federal law.

But no reason to let the facts get in the way of a good rant against job creators.

[Red Green]

Frankly, if these people really were not offering direct deposit, they deserve the backlash they got. There is nothing evil about pay cards. They are a great alternative to checks and people can get their money out just as if it were a check by going to a participating bank and cashing out. The reason businesses are moving away from checks is check-fraud is rampant and the book keeping is onerous.

[DamianTV]

So losing 25% of your income directly to Bank Fees is okay? WHen it is a decision that can be made by the employee, I could care less if it was 150%. But when the choice is made for them by the Employer, whole different ball of wax.

[angelatc]

So losing 25% of your income directly to Bank Fees is okay? WHen it is a decision that can be made by the employee, I could care less if it was 150%. But when the choice is made for them by the Employer, whole different ball of wax.

I don't know how to say this using any smaller words. She did not have to pay a single dime in bank fees. The original thread on this linked to the fee schedule for the cards. She was entitled to visit an ATM or a bank teller once per pay period to get the money, for free.

And also again, THIS IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. FEDERAL BANK LAWS SAY THAT EMPLOYERS MUST GIVE THEIR EMPLOYEES A WAY TO RECEIVE PAYMENT WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL PENALTY.

Big government's totally got your back, dude. High fives all around.

[muh_roads]

I stopped eating at McDonald's years ago. Their food makes you Fatty McFat Fatty Fuck Fat.

[presence]

So losing 25% of your income directly to Bank Fees is okay? WHen it is a decision that can be made by the employee, I could care less if it was 150%. But when the choice is made for them by the Employer, whole different ball of wax.

I'm going to have to side w/ angelatc here. If they were given opportunity to take their earnings in one lump sum without fees, once per pay period, then I really see any additional incurred fees to be the obligation of the convenience user not the employer. They may have had to cash their check at this location, but the fees incurred were for doing additional business with the instition beyond what was needed to get paid.

[RCA]

Don't work there if you don't like the pay terms. Better yet, don't work for any mega corporation. Even better yet, don't work for anyone.

This is the classic libertarian "if you don't like it then leave" fallacy that is used to support corrupt corporations and governments. This type of statement only holds water in a purely free market/ancap environment. When the system is corrupt, these utopian arguments are worthless and make the movement look petty. Another similar argument is "rich people are virtuous and are good for the economy and therefore I support rich people". The same fallacy mistakes are made here. When a large portion of rich people have made their wealth from bribes or legalized theft (Jim Taggart), then the argument falls apart immediately. Virtue comes from within, it is not an external quality. Just because you "have money" doesn't make you virtuous. Just because you "offer jobs" doesn't mean you are virtuous. So, by supporting the argument that a corporation is abusing its power by forcing its employees to accept a slanted payment option, is far more virtuous than defending a corporate juggernaut who operates and thrives in an almost completely un-free market.

[Anti Federalist]

Have a +rep.


This is the classic libertarian "if you don't like it then leave fallacy" that is used to support corrupt corporations and governments. This type of statement only holds water in a purely free market/ancap environment. When the system is corrupt, these utopian arguments are worthless and make the movement look petty. Another similar argument is "rich people are virtuous and are good for the economy and therefore I support rich people". The same fallacy mistakes are made here. When a large portion of rich people have made their wealth from bribes or legalized theft (Jim Taggart), then the argument falls apart immediately. Virtue comes from within, it is not an external quality. Just because you "have money" doesn't make you virtuous. Just because you "offer jobs" doesn't mean you are virtuous. So, by supporting the argument that a corporation is abusing its power by forcing its employees to accept a slanted payment option, is far more virtuous than defending a corporate juggernaut who operates and thrives in an almost completely un-free market.

[RCA]

Gracias!


Have a +rep.

[Dr.3D]

That's exactly what it was - a franchisee trying to save money. But the tone deaf anti-business faction of the forums won't acknowledge that the woman who filed the suit actually was able to get her money without paying a fee.
This is pretty much what I was saying in post #3.

[angelatc]

This is the classic libertarian "if you don't like it then leave" fallacy that is used to support corrupt corporations and governments..

Of course it is, and you're countering it with the classic liberal "We needz the gubmint to saves us frum them evil corporations and the mean ol' rich people."

[angelatc]

I'm going to have to side w/ angelatc here. If they were given opportunity to take their earnings in one lump sum without fees, once per pay period, then I really see any additional incurred fees to be the obligation of the convenience user not the employer. They may have had to cash their check at this location, but the fees incurred were for doing additional business with the instition beyond what was needed to get paid.


Just to clarify - the woman actually had a point. The law in her state said that the franchise was obligated to at least offer check or direct deposit options. They did not. But the liberals are intentionally misrepresenting the situation to the low info voter crowd for no reason than to collect email addresses to fundraise and call for action.

Just this morning I got a message from one of them telling me to call some vendor and ask them to stop advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show. The right never gets aggressive like that, and that's why we are losing the country.