[url=http://articles.philly.com/2013-06-16/news/40008232_1_debit-card-minimum-wage-feesHere take this debit card[/url

This is now getting beyond disgusting

Corporate filth.

This doesn't look like a McDonalds decision rather than the franchisee, it is disgusting though.

That is wrong.

Sounds like it's illegal there and (I think) would be illegal here too.

It is actually normal in the US to pay for transactions like ATM withdrawals so the issue is not really that though the cost of over the counter withdraws seems a deliberate attempt at a rip off.

It is whether or not you can be paid in a way you don't have to go via a fee levying institution to get at your cash that is the issue.

If the employee had her wages paid into any US bank she couldn't get at the cash for free.

In the UK we get "free banking" so a McDonalds franchisee paying wages into your current account wouldn't be an issue.

However it might become one if "free banking" in the UK disappears especially if you are compelled to have wages or pensions paid electronically into a bank account.

Don't UK state pensions have to be paid electronically these days?

If you don't have a suitable bank account don't they have to go into a special Post Office Card account provided specifically for the purpose?

Do we have any guarantee if the Post Office is privatised pensioners wouldn't find withdrawal fees imposed?

In this case, I wasn't meaning it about McDonalds, because, as you rightly say, it's a franchise.

That is no excuse for the franchisee (as you say) or the bank involved. The bank must understand what has been set up – and surely would know it's illegal in that state, as stated in the story.

I doubt the bank offering the service is illegal. What will be illegal is the employer compelling the employee to be paid that way because state law says an employee can request to be paid via cash or cheque.

If they get paid by cheque they will still have to pay a fee to cash it though. Or if they pay it into a bank account to deposit it and then they will pay fees to withdraw the money. That is just the way banking works over there though granted this scheme does seem to have very expensive fees compared to normal US banking fees.

I imagine a 27 year old mother already has a checking account but that will be at a bank of her choosing, not that of her employer. As you say, the charges do seem particularly punitive

The issue isn't the fees but the lack of choice of where and how the wages are paid.

I'd doubt the bank were aware of how the franchisee was using their product, a product they would have been paying the franchisee a commission on too.

Yes and I am sure the franchisee is the one where the $$ signs were lighting up first and no one in their right mind would chose an account/card that charges that much if they had alternative but unlike here its quite hard in the US to get at your own money completely for free.

I would have thought that, if there is a regular stream of cards/accounts being asked for by the company, they'd have a clue.

Not necessarily. A card scheme like that is just a product to the bank. They may operate many such schemes for all sorts of businesses who all all have different t&c's.

It's a terrible managerial mistake made by some franchisee. Similar stupidity will be replayed thousands of times throughout the world.

But hey, it's McDonald's, so quit your job, run to a lawyer and hope you've won the class action lawsuit jackpot.

The fact that a class action law suit has been initiated would suggest that this is far from an isolated incident.

And as far as it being a "managerial mistake", that's total bollox. It was a cynical attempt to further profit from an already exploited employee.

The lawyer will be desperately hoping that this is a widespread issue and there are thousands of McDonald's employees who have been forced to pay fees because they weren't given a chance to take other payment methods. That will result in McDonald's being hammered mainly because it is McDonald's.

But at this time there's the one person who did the job for a couple of weeks and then quit because of a possible charge of a few dollars.

What the franchisee did was clearly wrong, just from the report. If this was a one man fast food stall who was forcing his new worker to take the payment in this way the lawyer would have just told the worker to point out that the employer was legally obliged to offer alternative payment methods and sent them back to work. But because it's the evil McDonald's he saw the $$$$$$ signs flashing and launched a class action lawsuit.

No, it will result in the accused being hammered because they broke the law. I say accused because I am not sure who is being sued McDonalds or the franchisee.

If this was widespread enough for a class action to be feasible then the accused left themselves wide open and their own corporate lawyers are rubbish.



You can't bring a class action lawsuit on your own. So unless numerous people were being ripped off this way there would be no class action. If it were only one worker it would no doubt be prohibitive to sue the accused.

The notion if it were just one man the employee could point out the problem based on legal advice and it would all be fine shows an ignorance of the US labour market. "So sue me!" or "You're fired!" would be the reply and an individual could probably not afford to sue. Hence the need for class actions if more than one person is affected.

There is plenty of Ambulance chasing that goes on in the US (and here) which is not good but I don't think this case is like that whereby a lawyer senses a quick buck.

It's not too far away from the return of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_shopThe Tommy Shop[/url

Some law breaking deserves to be hammered. Some law breaking is down to ignorance and can be rectified by simply informing the offender that their actions are against the law.



They filed the action on Thursday. The filing of an action doesn't mean that the court have already found the party guilty, or that there is even a case to answer.



You can launch a class action lawsuit on your own. "The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries."

Obviously it's unlikely that the franchise only paid this woman in that way. It was probably the way they wished to pay all employees as it was likely cheaper. They have probably done it for a while over a few of their restaurants, depending on how big they are.



A woman who needs the money so much she cannot afford the fees of a few dollars. Her response is to quit her job after two weeks, go see a lawyer and launch a class action lawsuit.

It doesn't add up.



[iThe suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and asks for punitive, compensatory and liquidated damages, plus legal fees and litigation costs against the company for its "ill-gotten gains contrary to justice, equity, good conscience and Pennsylvania law."[/i

Erm, WTFever.

A class action implies widespread abuse and you don't just slap wrists for that.



I didn't say they were guilty but it left them open to an action. And it has since one has been filed.




No you can't. As you have just pointed out a class must consist of a group. They try the case with one or a few people on behalf of the "class" but you can't bring class actions if there is no "class". One plaintiff = no class action.

You do realise you contradicted yourself in one paragraph there don't you?



Obviously it's unlikely that the franchise only paid this woman in that way??? No it's not.

Paying electronically [iis[/i cheaper. I know all about it since its the field of IT I work in. I also know given we sell US sourced ATM driving software what level of fees are typical as the fee structures are built in and these fees are not typical and have nothing to do with it being cheaper to process the payment.



Her wage was $7.44 an hour. The idea you can afford (and should have no option but to pay) transaction charges of $1.50 ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry and 75 cents per online bill payment suggests you can't add up.

I bet if your bank started charging you such fees you'd whinge like merry hell whether you are on minimum wage or not. If it turned out it was also illegal for them to do that you'd certainly not turn down any recompense coming out of a successful class action either.



Yep lawyers use a funny language when they seek damages. And what they seek is not always what they get. It's starting point and the way the system works.

I really do think that some people don't have a clue about the reality of trying to live on poverty pay.

It seems to be a naive belief that no pay is so low that it will leave the employee struggling – unless they themselves are feckless. Or put another way, to blame.

It's just another version of the old Victorian belief that the poor were poor because they were sinful and therefore deserved it.

She's a single mother. She was getting between 30 and 37 hours a week at $7.44 an hour. She says she cannot afford to pay the $1.50 ATM transaction fee, so she quits her job. Her pay is now $0.

That makes sense to you?

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.