Banks - discipline for staff

[henry20]

I heard on the news today that bank staff are to be disciplined if they get their wages paid into a current account with a bank other than the one they work for.

Do you think this is fair?

Should the staff have freedom of choice who they choose to bank with? or should they be confident enough that the product they 'sell' is good value?

[brandy]

wouldnt that be an infringment of their rights?
what if they had an account with another bank before they started work with present bank?
that is their private buisness.. and no one elses..
i would fight that in a heartbeat.

[Blazing Sporrans]

I heard on the news today that bank staff are to be disciplined if they get their wages paid into a current account with a bank other than the one they work for.

Do you think this is fair?

Should the staff have freedom of choice who they choose to bank with? or should they be confident enough that the product they 'sell' is good value?
I'm sure the European Convention on Human Rights could be put to better use than challenging pre-recorded prison telephone messages and instead channeled into dealing with nonsense like this.... [disgust]

[Angela]

My son worked for six years for what is now HBOS.

To start with he was temping, but when he got a permanent position, a condition of his employment was that he had a "staff account" with them.

This was different from a normal current account. He accepted this condition when he took the job.

It was the same for all employees -when he left the bank, he had to close his "staff account" and open a new one.

[Buttercup]

A bit like saying that if you work in Tesco's you have to do your shopping there! :confused
Mind you, I've been told that there is perks to working there when it comes to getting/paying a mortgage.;)

[j4bberw0ck]

If it's in your contract that you wear a uniform, you wear a uniform or don't take the job.

If it's in your contract that you don't wear noserings or eyebrow studs, you don't wear noserings or eyebrow studs or don't take the job.

If it's in your contract that you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to, you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to or don't take the job.

Dead easy! Don't give me all this garbage about "rights". No one has said these staff can't have accounts elsewhere, just that their salary must be paid into a staff account with the bank........

[Bobinovich]

From what I read it was RBOS employees who have this particular rule thrust upon them when they join. However the employees of other banks, which had subsequently merged with RBOS, didn't have such rules with the banks they'd joined. Now RBOS are clamping down and insisting they get these staff accounts or face disciplinary action.

A bit harsh but if that's the rules then that's the rules.

[Penelope Pitstop]

I dare say that once the wages are paid into the employees account they can move it/set up a direct debit, etc. to what ever bank account they want.

It probably costs the bank to pay it into another bank's account?? Way of saving the bank money possibly??

They may also want you to have your cash sitting in their bank's account rather than another banks!!!!!!lol

[Angela]

If it's in your contract that you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to, you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to or don't take the job.

No one has said these staff can't have accounts elsewhere, just that their salary must be paid into a staff account with the bank........

Exactly!

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, the staff can move their money anywhere they like.

I don't think when my son was at HBOS people minded, so long as they were paid on time :lol: and in fact there were fewer problems and delays with payments into staff accounts than where a large employer is paying salaries into accounts with a lot of different banks.

It probably did save the bank money, but the more profit the bank made the higher the bonuses for the staff...

I can see that it may feel strange to staff at RBOS who have been working for subsidiaries, but as far as I know it's common practice.

[poppett]

In a previous employment, not bank related, if our wages were paid into the Bank of Scotland, our employer`s bank, the wages were there on a Wednesday night, however if we chose to have our wages paid into another bank the money wasn`t available until the Friday.....we did have a choice and most of the staff had the money paid to Bank of Scotland and then transferred it. Technically our wages were due to us on the Friday, so getting access to them two days early was a bonus.

[rockchick]

While I appreciate the outrage of people being required to do business with their employer, i.e. having a bank account with that bank if you work with them., I would HATE to be disciplined for that...

my question is. (twofold)..

(1) If YOU, yourself, wouldn't, or don't bank with that bank, why the heck are you working for them? Get a job with a better bank!

(2) and the Employer should be asking themselves, why, if our employees get a discount (which I'm assuming you would - most employers offer some sort of employee incentive) and they still don't want to bank with us...what are we doing wrong?)

taking it out of banking...if Co-ops employees get, as they are entitled to, a 10% discount when shopping at Tesco, and they STILL DON'T SHOP THERE, Co-ops should really be asking themselves what they are doing wrong.

Not that co-op employees don't shop at co-ops...

Personally, I like co-ops...

and all the other shops

I'm going back to my hole now...

<slinks away>

probably shouldn't post when I've been drinking on a Fridaynight....

[sassylass]

I dare say that once the wages are paid into the employees account they can move it/set up a direct debit, etc. to what ever bank account they want.

It probably costs the bank to pay it into another bank's account?? Way of saving the bank money possibly??

They may also want you to have your cash sitting in their bank's account rather than another banks!!!!!!lol

You hit the nail on the head. It makes perfect sense for a bank to try and keep the money in house.

It also makes perfect sense for an employee to immediately transfer his money to another bank, away from the eyes of coworkers.

[mareng]

If it's in your contract that you wear a uniform, you wear a uniform or don't take the job.

If it's in your contract that you don't wear noserings or eyebrow studs, you don't wear noserings or eyebrow studs or don't take the job.

If it's in your contract that you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to, you have a staff bank account for your salary to be paid in to or don't take the job.

Dead easy! Don't give me all this garbage about "rights". No one has said these staff can't have accounts elsewhere, just that their salary must be paid into a staff account with the bank........

Ah-hah! That makes more sense - just transfer the money to another account as soon as it appears, but of course - the bank takes 3-4 days to do that little bit of electronic wizardry (while using the funds)

I still think it is a bit heavy-handed.

Sorry I'll miss you this weekend -I was wondering what you looked like with your new noserings :)

A

[j4bberw0ck]

I still think it is a bit heavy-handed.

The implementation, yes. The principle of it, nahhhh.


Sorry I'll miss you this weekend -I was wondering what you looked like with your new noserings :)

Hehehe - my noserings may be less bent and battered that your headguard. I'll raise a glass in a generally south-easterly direction Friday evening :lol: .

[Bill Fernie]

I am disappointed to hear that any employer would co-erce employes to use their products or services. This smacks of the nineteenth century "Truck System" that was eventually outlawed.

See -
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/haynin/haynin1009.htm

Under the "Truck System" employees might for example be forced for one reason or another to use the company store and often paid over the odds for goods thus making the workers of a particular employer poorer whilst he got richer at their expense.

I would have thought that bank unions would be well aware of any pitfalls and rsist anything that tied employees into using a partiular product that may for all we know not be the best for the staff.

It might be heaven forbid that if the bank went bust not only would the staff lose their jobs they would lose any money/savings in that account.

As the Truck Act was brought in to protect workers in the noineteenth century perhaps new legislation is required to bring in more modern form of protection for workers in this instance or similar situations. It may be that there are special deals fro employees that might be attractive but co-ercion should not be included and threats of disciplinary action would seem heavy handed. Perhaps someone knows if there is a more up to date law offering protection from such pressure?

[j4bberw0ck]

The reason banks insist on their staff having salaries paid into an account with them (usually at the same branch) is less to do with the Truck Acts and much more to do with being able to see employee's financial transactions and make sure that they're not in financial difficulty - or getting that way. Surrounded by money, desperate people become desperately stupid sometimes.

I worked for a bank years ago and each and every credit into my personal account had to be explained to my manager - what is was and where it came from - and the credit slip initialled by him. As far as I know they don't do that these days, and the idea that to have an account elsewhere is a disciplinary offence has also been consigned to history.

The practices outlawed by the Truck Acts enabled employers to profit from a monopoly position. That's not true here. Quite apart from the paltry sums involved, staff get free banking!

Comes back to contract. If you don't like the terms of the job, find another. End of problem.