Employee refuses to use Direct Deposit
LC 4 Posts
We are considering making Direct Deposit mandatory. We only have a small number of employees not currently using DD. We have a long term employee that states he will never go DD. What happens if an employee refuses Direct Deposit? Any suggestions from past expeniences would be greatly appreciated.
Best check with your states' Wage & Hour folks, we went Direct Deposit, but we were not allowed to go mandatory. Instead we went positive on the change over and offered an award for going DD. You can be very creative and offer just about anything. We had a good number who understood the value and we only offered a guarntee that their money would be available to them on Thursday morning by no later than 10:00 AM, otherwise, their check goes in the mail on Wednesday afternoon before 5:00 PM and some are now getting their checks on Friday/Saturday or later if the US Postal service doesn't get it distributed.
WE at first had an option to pick their check up at the home office; that option for the remote locations has been cancelled. DD and Postal are the only two options.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why someone would prefer to stand in line on Friday afternoons to deposit their paycheck when they could be home with their feet up, having a nice, cold glass of wine.
Several years ago I worked for a union facility and we were looking at goingto mandatory direct deposit. Many workers had a problem with this and we couldn't understand why so we talked to the workers and found out that many of them "hid" the overtime pay from their spouses. Their spouses knew what an employee made on a standard 40 hour week but when you add overtime, it is difficult to figure what the net will be. Anyway these men (yes it was the men who voiced the biggest complaint)went directly to the bank after work, cashed their checks and gave their spouse the cash only after taking a little extra for themself to use for whatever. Going with direct deposit takes that option away. Pretty funny, huh?
Anyway, just thought I would share that.
>Several years ago I worked for a union facility and we were looking at
>goingto mandatory direct deposit. Many workers had a problem with
>this and we couldn't understand why so we talked to the workers and
>found out that many of them "hid" the overtime pay from their spouses.
> Their spouses knew what an employee made on a standard 40 hour week
>but when you add overtime, it is difficult to figure what the net will
>be. Anyway these men (yes it was the men who voiced the biggest
>complaint)went directly to the bank after work, cashed their checks
>and gave their spouse the cash only after taking a little extra for
>themself to use for whatever. Going with direct deposit takes that
>option away. Pretty funny, huh?
>Anyway, just thought I would share that.
Guess I never thought about that as I have never had to "hide" anything from my spouse. I guess some men must have to resort to such measures.
There's ways around everything.
Currently if an ee doesn't use DD we charge them $5.00 for each check we have to write.
People have their reasons and we do not always want to know them.
We don't charge for this service and I have never heard of anyone who did. It is really an advantage to the company as well as the employee as it saves time and money not having to cut individual payroll checks and/or postage to mail them.
I have also heard that one of the problems with DD was the issue of hiding money. Here that should not be a problem. Just set up another account and divert money to that account.
I would never admit this to an ee, but I can understand why your "old timer" doesn't want to go DD, because he knows that errors can be withdrawn out of the account as well as deposits put in.
We tell new employees before background check or anything that it is a requirement. We also give a grace period to get it set up. All "live" paychecks come to HR, so they have to face me every payday with my gentle reminders that they are not in compliance.
Our bank, which is near us, provides free accounts and will open them for any of our employees. We've only had one or two who absolutely couldn't qualify for an account due to previous banking problems. They have quit on their own, so I've never had to force the issue with anyone.
Sorry! Just really ticked me off this AM. I use DD myself, but did so only to set an esample for others, but not everyone agreed, and I applaud them for it, and would never penalize them for thnking for themselves. The beauty of this whole country is that we are free to make any and all of our own decisions, good or bad, except those that profoundly affect others negativelyu. At least that's the way it used to be. Hell, I don't even own my own house - with all the regualtions and taxes and other BS the gov nmt just lets me lease it for awhile, and even then I have to have my house numbers in a certain location in a minimum size in a particular color so emergency crews can see it. Maybe I don't intend to rely on emergency crews - would never call them, I choose to be responsible for myself under all circumstances - novel thought huh? Sorry, the government will hold you responsible for everything it deems necessary, but really doesn't want you to embrace responsibility for yourself. WHY? Because, if we all accepted lots more of responsibility for ourselvbes, governmentg would larghely be out of business - and out of our lives and our pockets - and WE WOULD ALL BE A HELLUVA LOT BETTER OFF!!!! But we've brought it all on ourselves, we look to the government, and now the employer, to provide for every little thing we think we need, and then we wonder why our taxes are so high and the services are so poor. Give me a break! Sorry again, just can't seem to get settled down this AM - must be the cold air foreshadowing the coming of another Michigan winter that has me wound up. But I realy mean (almost) everything I said. No apologieas this time! Have a great day! It's still the best country in the world - it could just be a whole lot better if we celebrated individual thought and responsibility. We need neither government nor employer to be our Mother.
This week I had a banker come by to market a new program that works like a debit card and is available only to those who are prohibited from opening accounts because of a previous problem.
Most of our staff have thanked us, because some of them wouldn't have been able to open an account otherwise and it is helping them build their credit history.
We also participate with a credit union that gives free accounts, so they have options. But the bottom line is, it's still a free country. They know up front that DD is our policy. They can choose to work elsewhere.
The biggest drawback for us is that people don't pick up their paystubs, which makes distributing the company newsletter and other information more difficult.
The only reason I joined this discussion is because someone said it could not be mandatory.
We charge a one-time set-up fee of $2.50 and a $1.00 fee every payday that is taken out of the check.
In KY the employee must still get a pay statment and incur no cost for direct deposit.
I do have DD because most of the time it is an advantage. Occasionally it is not. My 9 departmental employees all DD except one. I would never consider requiring her to DD. In fact, about 95% of the county employees voluntarily DD. How is the remaining 5% going to cost the county a significant amount of money? In addition, I talked to the payroll department who told me that DD doesn't save that much time, it comes with a different set of requirements which also take time.
I cannot understand why we, as employers, need to control every facet of our employees' lives. Is it a power and control issue? Is it merely to accustom them to taking our "orders"? Is our convenience more important than theirs? Are we just more important, so they must do as they are told? Any advantage put forth by my employer has not materialized according to the payroll department.
I think we need to spend more time making sure everyone is going their jobs efficiently and effectively and less time controlling our employees banking habits.
I have always, always disagreed with checking someone's credit as a condition of employment unless they are directly handling cash. I do not think that it speaks of a person's character. I personally, think it should be illegal. Anyone, regardless of income and individual responsibility, can end up in a serious financial situation due to a major house or car repair (you HAVE to get to work), illness of a family member or themselves, etc.
Any employer who uses getting a checking account as a condition of employment needs to be careful...it can be considered discrimination in some states due to socioeconomic status, because being poor and not having the money to pay needed bills does not always equal a person who is not responsible. It just means they are poor. Not all bills are unnecessary.
You could be passing up a ton of great potential employees. I have two that works for me that had to file for bankruptcy and have credit scores with so many pages of collections that don't even read because of joint accounts with a spouse coupled with a nasty divorce. They are both women, and both of them are some of my most reliable and trustworthy employees.