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

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.

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

As, I suspect, you know perfectly well.

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.

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?

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.

You've missed my point I think.
My question is ... if she had remained in her job, notwithstanding the separate legal position of the employer only offering one method, would the tacit agreement of accepting payment in that way have affected her attempts at redress?

If she stayed in her job for a year and never took the complaint any further with her managers she'd have still been able to show the costs that she was forced to incur because of the companies payment method.

If she continued to work for the company but complained in writing to the company, and pointed out that they were legally obliged to comply with the law and offer other payment methods, then that clearly strengthens her case. If the company then insists that they will only pay with the payroll card it proves that the company were knowingly breaking the law.

How much compensation do you feel she's due because she quit her job after 3 weeks because of the payroll card costs?

Based on what evidence? Why would he need to do that given there must have been others being paid that way who he could contact and dangle the prospect of compensation in front of. As she is one party to a class action there clearly are others willing to take part.



She did complain and it wasn't rectified. On complaining she was told it was the only option.



Having been told it was the only option perhaps she simply could not afford to spend her working hours building up a case history of repeated abuse of the law that cost her money? Low wage earners can't afford $1.50 or a $1 here and $0.75 there on a regular basis.

"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."

If she wasn't prepared to accept less than her wages as his her right (which is what the payroll system amounts to) what choice did she have?

It was either put up with it or leave. She chose to leave and then seek redress. This is not irrational behaviour.

Are you seriously contending that a McDonalds franchisee was so ignorant of State employment law? Have you seen just what McDonalds require of their franchisees and not just in the $thousands franchise fee and working capital? They hardly encourage the 'mom & pop' type of entrepreneur

Based on the the fact that she is a single mother who claims she cannot afford to cover the costs of the card, quitting the job straight away on finding her pay is through the payroll card and then going to a lawyer to see if she has a case. That doesn't seem likely to me.

If the lawyer contacts a McDonald's employee asking how they are paid then it's very likely that the employee will tell the company, alerting them to the fact he is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them.



She complained to a store manager and the "office" of the franchise.

So there's around $300 of her money on a payroll card. She has a job. Because of the fees she refuses to use the payroll card. She then quits her job and goes to see a lawyer to see if she has a case.

What would she have done if the lawyer had said that it was legal for her to be paid with the payroll card? Wouldn't quitting her job have been a reckless thing to do, considering she is a single mother?



It would be rational behaviour to go see a lawyer while you were still working, to see if it was legal. It is not rational to quit your job and then go and see if you have a case.

So, no evidence to support your speculation at all.

Mind, I am appreciating your, in effect, attempts to smear the victim.

I have seen figures about how much it costs to run major franchises like McDonald's. Of the top of my head a McDonald's restaurant will cost between $700k and $1.5m.

Obviously the people running numerous McDonald's restaurants will be people with access to serious cash. But that doesn't mean that they have up to date management skills or knowledge of the minute details of employment laws in the states they operate.

I think the major victim here is McDonald's Corporation. They are victims of a rabid, biased press and the willing consumers of that press.

But that's the cost of franchising to people who might make stupid errors. I think they are more than adequately compensated.

I think that the woman was a minor victim of managerial incompetence. I think that she should have corrected that incompetence through clear correspondence, not running off to a lawyer to see if she was due a payout.

I think that the fees that accompany that card are excessive and should result on them not being used. I think that the franchise will compensate any employee who has suffered excess charges and offer payment through other means.

I hope your "victim" gets a cheque to cover the wages she has earned and a $5 gift voucher to cover the fees she found so offensive.

You think the multi-billion pound corporation paying its employees barely liveable wages and its business partners breaking the law to squeeze a few cents more out of their barely paid employees are the victims because the person whose legal rights were infringed exercised her right to legal recourse.

That is not evidence it's opinion based on putting two and two together and coming up with five.



What? Your not serious. Very likely that the employee will tell the company? Do you ring your bank up every time you get a cold call asking you to claim for miss-sold PPI to let your bank know there is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them? Or do you just put the phone down?

In any case solicitation of class action clients is not as simple as that kind of ambulance chasing. Defence lawyers in the US will always try and get such cases thrown out on the merest hint of lawyers inventing class actions.



And?

"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. "

As its the franchisee who is her employer imposing the card and its the franchisee being sued who should she have taken it to? Seems she went to the right place to me.

So she certainly followed one course of action you think right. She tried to get the company to obey the law before she quit when they would not.



It's not legal so why do you ask? I would imagine it's common knowledge in the US you can ask to be paid in cash or by cheque. If she feels having these amounts deducted from her wages meant she could not live off the wage how could she stay as an employee?



As I said I'd expect it to be common knowledge of your rights on how you can get paid just as you know many of your employment rights here.

The lawyer may even have advised against perusing a case despite the card payment being illegal but that doesn't mean she should still have carried on working their does it?

I don't know what your issue is. If she had carried on working there she was going to try and seek redress and as others have said accepting the terms might have made that difficult. You seem offended she decided to quit.

The right to be paid by cash or cheque isn't a minute detail!

Now I know you're trolling.

Anyone who sinks that sort of money into a business and doesn't know the minute details of employment law (or doesn't employ someone who does), is a blithering idiot who deserves to have their arze handed to them in a court of law.

You had previously said: "Why would he need to do that given there must have been others being paid that way who he could contact and dangle the prospect of compensation in front of."

So exactly how is he supposed to contact these injured parties to get them their rightful justice?



Which could happen in this case.



If I wanted to be fobbed off after working for a company for a couple of weeks, I'd call on the phone whining that I wanted to be paid with a cheque and not the payroll card they'd given me. If I wanted the issue sorted I'd be writing a registered letter outlining my issues and pointing out the fact it was against the law to not offer cheque or direct debit.



It's not an issue most people will have ever thought about. Most places will have simply paid their employees by cash, cheque or direct deposit and it is only recently that the payroll card has been introduced.



She cannot afford to live on around $200 - a $5 fee, but she can afford to live on $0?



I lived and worked in the USA for 6 years. I've worked in the UK about 15 years. I've never really had any issue with any employers, so I know practically NOTHING about employment law. I've never felt mistreated so I've never paid it any attention.

But just imagine that Pennsylvania state law said that payment through the payroll card was perfectly valid, and no other payment options needed to be offered. Wouldn't her quitting her job over the transaction fee be a spectacularly stupid thing to do?



El Barbudo questioned whether accepting the card would be a tacit agreement and make redress difficult. I don't believe it would. I believe that her losing the transaction fees out of her wage would demonstrate a clear loss which she should be compensated for. But as she quit almost straight away that loss is about $5. I hope she gets that $5 and maybe a cent to compensate her for her hardship.

I think you can stop tying yourself in knots right there.

There is no supposing what the law might be, all there is is what the law is.

You really have lost the plot now. You said:

"If the lawyer contacts a McDonald's [uemployee[/u asking how they are paid then it's very likely that the [uemployee[/u will tell the [icompany[/i, alerting them to the fact he is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them."

I responded to that suggesting this was highly unlikely an [uemployee[/u would do any such thing. Now you are talking about the lawyer contacting potential clients!!!



It could be thrown out but if it progresses then all your protestations about it being a deliberate scam will have been unfounded.



What don't you understand about the fact she complained and was fobbed off having complained?



The point is US employees will be very familiar with their rights to be paid by cheque or cash in the same way you are familiar with many of your employment rights in the UK (although I see below you are claiming ignorance as a defense of your position - good one.)

In the US cheques are still prevalent and it's also cash based society far more than here. It's a cultural thing. I actually worked for the worlds largest cheque printing company, Delux, until they sold off their IT arm when they decided to go back to their core business off printing cheques! They expected a decline in cheque usage so got into IT but the decline didn't happen so they got out again. I mention this to try and illustrate to you an important cultural difference between the US and here. I will pay electronically whenever I can. I like to be paid that way to. If I were a US citizen particularly one living outside the big cities I probably would not. Having a card based wage payment like this imposed even if it were legal would go down like a lead balloon over there.



That is not what I said. And where is she living off $0? The article makes no mention of her income since leaving and given she isn't going to be able to live off $0 I suggest she is now receiving an income without the transaction charges deducted.



Well you could have fooled me because you don't seem to have much understanding of the culture.



That doesn't transfer to other people and clearly this woman on minimum wage understood her rights. Most less well off people do in my experience. They have to in order not to get shafted.



No lets not imagine anything. Lets stick to the facts and the law as it stands. Why would I want to discuss and imaginary legal position?

I originally said I doubted that this was a genuine case because I doubted her story because I don't think any sensible person jacks in a job over a transaction fee. I said that I felt that this was a lawyer promoted situation and he probably got her to get a job at McD's to start the case. You said he'd have no need to do that because the restaurant already has people working there who he can contact. I don't think it would be safe for a lawyer to make cold calls to their present employees because it's highly likely the employees would talk between themselves and also talk with management.



It's not a "scam". There is a genuine problem with the payment practice of that franchise, and possibly some other companies as well.



There are ways of complaining that will be fobbed off and ways of complaining that will be answered. Just from the articles, it seems she chose ways of complaining that virtually guarantee being fobbed off.



The only people who would know about this issue are people who have dealt with it



Another article I read said her fiance is helping her out and she has been applying for other jobs.



The culture of people without jobs is to accept whatever payment option is offered to them when they start a new job. About 4 years ago in England I was inquiring at an employment agency in Hudds about jobs and was told that the ONLY way they'd pay was direct to a bank account in my name. As I didn't have a bank account at that time it was an issue for me. But before going to see that agency I had no idea they would be so strict, I would have expected a cheque option or possibly a direct debit into one of my family members accounts.

NO ONE is going to know about this type of thing until they go through it or deal with this in their job.



The articles never said that. It said she didn't agree with the transaction fees, complained to a manager and the franchise and asked about getting a payment into her credit union, was told to accept the card, then quit and went to see the lawyer if she had a claim because of the possibility of her wage dipping below minimum wage.



The facts are that she quit her job after 3 weeks of work allegedly because of the payroll card. What redress do you think SHE deserves from the company?