If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   68 year-old man fired by Wells Fargo after it was discovered he put a cardboard dime in a washing machine in 1963 is cleared to work again in the banking industry, but Wells Fargo wants him to reapply and earn a smaller wage   (blogs.desmoinesregister.com) divider line 71
    More: Followup, Wells Fargo, West Des Moines, process work, bank regulation, customer service representative, salary, Grassley  
•       •       •

10024 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2012 at 6:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-11 06:08:43 AM
I hope you know this will go down on your permanent record
 
2012-10-11 06:08:58 AM
Interesting to see you could get into trouble for such a "crime" back then.

Nowadays it's all just excuses. B-b-but poor people! B-b-but black people! B-b-but the Republikkkans!
 
2012-10-11 06:09:23 AM
So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?
 
2012-10-11 06:12:11 AM
You just made up that part about "and earn a smaller wage", didn't you, subby? That is pretty dishonest reporting.. I guess some people will do whatever it takes, though, for a green light..
 
2012-10-11 06:12:33 AM
That's about right.
 
2012-10-11 06:12:40 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


You nailed it right there.
 
2012-10-11 06:13:01 AM
It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.
 
2012-10-11 06:13:54 AM

Big Ramifications: Interesting to see you could get into trouble for such a "crime" back then.

Nowadays it's all just excuses. B-b-but poor people! B-b-but black people! B-b-but the Republikkkans!


Yeah, sure, the country that puts more people in jail than China is soft on crime.

/ pull the other one.
 
2012-10-11 06:15:01 AM
Sounds like a case of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. He committed a petty crime 50 years ago but his half century of good behaviour and clean work record should outweigh that one tiny blemish.
 
2012-10-11 06:16:56 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


Basically they were following the new banking regulations recently put in place.
 
2012-10-11 06:22:06 AM
bbut Wells Fargo prints cardboard coins all the time (loans)
 
2012-10-11 06:24:29 AM

Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.


So $29K constitutes "higher cost employees " in your mind?

Damn. Glad I don't work where you do.
 
2012-10-11 06:26:08 AM

Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.


No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.
 
2012-10-11 06:39:04 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


He had only worked for them for 7 years. I doubt that there was any retirement benefits for that amount of time. He was also one of many fired under a FDIC regulation.
 
2012-10-11 06:40:23 AM

Krusty_the_Barbarian: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.

~
~
Well spotted. I read it about exactly half way between those two PoVs.

"Rules is rules" and all that - but in a slimy Machiavellian way.
 
2012-10-11 06:41:38 AM
This is the same bank that charged me $30 for THEIR error. And never managed to refund the money, even though they promised to. Fark them.
 
2012-10-11 06:45:39 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


He was 68 and had worked there more than 5 years so even with being fired he is likely eligible for whatever meager retirement benefits they offer call center employees.
 
2012-10-11 06:48:08 AM
I use the same bank as ICP, Wells Faygo.
 
2012-10-11 06:52:52 AM

jmr61: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

So $29K constitutes "higher cost employees " in your mind?

Damn. Glad I don't work where you do.


Higher is a comparative term used to compare his salary to other commiserate employees. 29k may not be "high cost," but maybe so compared to his coworkers. Bean counters don't care how much it is as long as they can prove it's more than they could be paying. Then again, this is based upon him having seniority and collecting benefits/wages/pension according to that seniority.
 
2012-10-11 06:53:41 AM

HenryFnord: I use the same bank as ICP, Wells Faygo.


Ohana punch you for that one.

/couldn't think of a good Rock and Rye pun
//there's gotta be one, dammit
 
2012-10-11 07:01:47 AM
Wells Fargo is evil.

/that is all
 
2012-10-11 07:02:39 AM
Hell, this whole over paranoid background check is just bullshiat. Before I retired from BellSouth Florida phased a law requiring an insanely strict background check on anyone that MIGHT work on a school campus. Since being a telephone tech means you could, in theory, be sent to work on the phones at a school every outside tech was required to be finger printed and background checked. There were a few techs that had close to twenty years on the job that were fired for failing their background checks. The horrible offenses they were guilty of ranged from public urination to stealing a cow, the later one occurred when the tech was 16 and close to 40 years prior.

And the insanity was not only with the State for requiring this (because why would anyone fail this background check if they hasn't done anything to harm children? Hell, a DUI would prevent you from getting clearance to work in school property) but BellSouth as well, because failing to get this clearance only kept you from working on a school property. So why fire the tech, just don't send that tech on any jobs at a school location? I worked for them for more than ten years and only one time in that ten plus years did I ever work on a school campus.

Well, with those techs fired it must be very comforting to know that our children are safe and these monsters won't be lurking around their schools. Of course what you really have are a few men who did something stupid in their youth losing high paying careers that they had for fifteen or twenty years. I swear there is no common sense in the world any longer.
 
2012-10-11 07:09:30 AM

Big Ramifications: Neondistraction: Big Ramifications: Interesting to see you could get into trouble for such a "crime" back then.

Nowadays it's all just excuses. B-b-but poor people! B-b-but black people! B-b-but the Republikkkans!

Yeah, sure, the country that puts more people in jail than China is soft on crime.

/ pull the other one.
~
Ogga booga! China. Ooga booga!

And what has happened since?

** Left wing gaylord soft-on-crime stance means they get chcuked in jail later, for more serious crimes.
** The USA were a bit tougher on nogs back in dem days.

// no citations
//// just like your soft-tard comment.


I wasn't aware I needed to provide citations for such a common fact.

Link # 1
Link #2
Link # 3
Link #4

There's lots more I could post, but they all pretty much have the same info. Oh, and I used China as an example because they are the most populous country in the world. They have over 3 times as many people as we do, yet we have more than twice the number of people in prison than they do. That's not per capita, that's straight up numbers.

Of course, I could have just used any country as an example, because we beat out everyone. We have 5% of the worlds total population, but 25% of the global prison population. Those are facts. How can you claim we are soft on crime when we put more people in jail than any other country on the planet? I'm genuinely curious.
 
2012-10-11 07:14:14 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

He had only worked for them for 7 years. I doubt that there was any retirement benefits for that amount of time. He was also one of many fired under a FDIC regulation.


jeffowl: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

He was 68 and had worked there more than 5 years so even with being fired he is likely eligible for whatever meager retirement benefits they offer call center employees.



Ahh, for some reason I thought he worked there for much longer than that.
 
2012-10-11 07:20:50 AM
What a totally asinine system. Practically guarantees the need for more jails, cops and pandering politicians to be elected.

Deny a man a means to earn a wage basically as a revenge for petty crimes in the past.

So this either cost the people taxes for welfare or i those that turn to crime to survive to run them through the expensive,sick joke known as the "justice" system.

The real criminals wear suits and ties or uniforms.
 
2012-10-11 07:25:41 AM

elementalogic: Sounds like a case of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. He committed a petty crime 50 years ago but his half century of good behaviour and clean work record should outweigh that one tiny blemish.


That depends on whether you believe "justice" is karmic or not. We're pretty inconsistent on the issue of whether good deeds compensate for bad or not in the US, despite our rhetoric of "paying a debt to society."

(I personally never understood how spending years completely removed from society in prison paid any debts, but that's just me.)
 
2012-10-11 07:29:53 AM

Neondistraction: Big Ramifications: Neondistraction: Big Ramifications: Interesting to see you could get into trouble for such a "crime" back then.

Nowadays it's all just excuses. B-b-but poor people! B-b-but black people! B-b-but the Republikkkans!

Yeah, sure, the country that puts more people in jail than China is soft on crime.

/ pull the other one.
~
Ogga booga! China. Ooga booga!

And what has happened since?

** Left wing gaylord soft-on-crime stance means they get chcuked in jail later, for more serious crimes.
** The USA were a bit tougher on nogs back in dem days.

// no citations
//// just like your soft-tard comment.

I wasn't aware I needed to provide citations for such a common fact.

Link # 1
Link #2
Link # 3
Link #4

There's lots more I could post, but they all pretty much have the same info. Oh, and I used China as an example because they are the most populous country in the world. They have over 3 times as many people as we do, yet we have more than twice the number of people in prison than they do. That's not per capita, that's straight up numbers.

Of course, I could have just used any country as an example, because we beat out everyone. We have 5% of the worlds total population, but 25% of the global prison population. Those are facts. How can you claim we are soft on crime when we put more people in jail than any other country on the planet? I'm genuinely curious.


Please Don't Feed The Trolls


/unless it's spentmiles, that one doesn't count.
 
2012-10-11 07:30:13 AM

Koodz: (I personally never understood how spending years completely removed from society in prison paid any debts, but that's just me.)


Oh, I can help. Convicts help pay the debts of prison administrators and politicians in these ways:
Public money pays for housing convicts in private prisons, providing profits which pay the administrators' debts. They also work for Chinese child laborer wages in prison work yards, with the sales going to carefully selected companies. The politicians are able to solicit for donations among the "tough on crime" crowd, which helps them pay their debts. I'm sure I'm leaving out many others who pay their debts with money collected from imprisoning people.
 
2012-10-11 07:34:31 AM

threadjackistan:
Please Don't Feed The Trolls

/unless it's spentmiles, that one doesn't count.


Well that would explain some things. My troll detector doesn't get up before noon.
 
2012-10-11 07:49:35 AM
Regulation: empowering knee-jerk bureaucrats to wreck perfectly normal arrangements for detail non-compliance while ignoring bigger problems under their noses.

Seriously, this is a case of hiring the wrong people to police the industry. Who likes a bureaucrat?
 
2012-10-11 08:04:46 AM

sodomizer: Regulation: empowering knee-jerk bureaucrats to wreck perfectly normal arrangements for detail non-compliance while ignoring bigger problems under their noses.

Seriously, this is a case of hiring the wrong people to police the industry. Who likes a bureaucrat?


A lawyer?
 
2012-10-11 08:09:27 AM
sodomizer: Regulation: empowering knee-jerk bureaucrats to wreck perfectly normal arrangements for detail non-compliance while ignoring bigger problems under their noses.

Seriously, this is a case of hiring the wrong people to police the industry. Who likes a bureaucrat?


I love your name. I think I shall give it a bright red hilight.
 
2012-10-11 08:13:30 AM

OBBN: Hell, this whole over paranoid background check is just bullshiat...Well, with those techs fired it must be very comforting to know that our children are safe and these monsters won't be lurking around their schools. Of course what you really have are a few men who did something stupid in their youth losing high paying careers that they had for fifteen or twenty years. I swear there is no common sense in the world any longer.


I wish I could say your story was an aberration here in the US. Unfortunately, we're not too big on forgiving the cardboard dimers and cow tippers when we have murderers to let off the hook and clear on technicalities.
 
2012-10-11 08:19:28 AM
If your job title has "customer service" in it, you're not highly paid.
 
2012-10-11 08:21:09 AM

Summoner101: jmr61: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

So $29K constitutes "higher cost employees " in your mind?

Damn. Glad I don't work where you do.

Higher is a comparative term used to compare his salary to other commiserate employees. 29k may not be "high cost," but maybe so compared to his coworkers. Bean counters don't care how much it is as long as they can prove it's more than they could be paying. Then again, this is based upon him having seniority and collecting benefits/wages/pension according to that seniority.


If he works at a big bank, he'll get plenty of coworkers to commiserate.

/Apropos faux pas, I say
 
2012-10-11 08:21:23 AM

Molavian: If your job title has "customer service" in it, you're not highly paid.


maybe he was a stage coach driver

www.cellinifinegifts.com
 
2012-10-11 08:45:45 AM
Banking is the ultimate business. Get your product free from the government, then make up to 30% in profit from it. No raw materials to buy, no waste to dispose of. (Except your employees.) You fark up, government rescues you. What more could you ask for?

Ever notice how the nicest buildings in town are bank buildings?
 
2012-10-11 09:04:37 AM
The gubmint is pretty freaky weird on this. Obama pardoned a guy last year that had been a convicted a felon, not allowed to vote or own guns, his crime? In 1965 he put a slug in a vending machine at an Army base where he was a soldier, but wait it gets weirder. How did they catch him? The company reported to the slug to the FBI, the FBI then proceeded to put an undercover agent in his barracks posing as a soldier and then lived there for another 6 months until finally the guy used a slug again. BAM! prisoner, kicked out of the army and so on. Seriously, I guess the FBI wasn't very busy in the mid-60's.
 
2012-10-11 09:11:19 AM
You bleeding heart, soft on crime libtards make me sick.

A man who would steal from a laundromat has a soul marred by sin. He would have no qualms about stealing from a bank account - maybe even yours.

A criminal working for a bank could do untold harm to individuals, the company that employs him, and perhaps every single depositor who does business with that bank, if the public's confidence in the safety of the institution is put into doubt.

We must demand the highest ethical standards for those who work in the financial industry in general, and the banking sector in particular, and there must be zero tolerance for illegal behavior.

Furthermore, we must hold rank and file bank employees to the same exacting moral standards as the owners and executives. Therefore he deserves to be kicked to the curb with no sympathy whatsoever.
 
2012-10-11 09:16:23 AM
This Wells Fargo?

Link
 
2012-10-11 09:23:01 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


Retirement from 7 years winding up at under $30k a year? Evil as they may be, I don't think they would risk the pr storm for such small potatoes. I think this and other firings were calculated to make people go "bank regulation bad".
 
2012-10-11 09:23:47 AM

untaken_name: Koodz: (I personally never understood how spending years completely removed from society in prison paid any debts, but that's just me.)

Oh, I can help. Convicts help pay the debts of prison administrators and politicians in these ways:
Public money pays for housing convicts in private prisons, providing profits which pay the administrators' debts. They also work for Chinese child laborer wages in prison work yards, with the sales going to carefully selected companies. The politicians are able to solicit for donations among the "tough on crime" crowd, which helps them pay their debts. I'm sure I'm leaving out many others who pay their debts with money collected from imprisoning people.


I don't know how many other states are this way, but I learned yesterday that in New Mexico, the public defender's office is a branch within the department of corrections.
Yet people will keep saying there is no prison industry in the US.

/mini rant off
 
2012-10-11 09:24:29 AM

Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.


I saw this happen at the local 5/3rd branch where my company does business. The teller was taking money out of her moms account and putting it in her own. The teller manager caught her THAT DAY doing it. They fired the teller (2 year employee) and the teller manager, a 26 year employee with zero discipline records because "she should have caught it sooner." They had also just gotten rid of a 24 year and 31 year employee at two other branches locally. Not at all suspicious.
 
2012-10-11 09:26:16 AM
Wells Fargo fired me because I was using a loophole to get new customers free checks.
 
2012-10-11 09:28:40 AM

Krusty_the_Barbarian: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.


Either you have never been through a layoff/downsizing or you are just being a shill. Everybody that has ever been through one knows that if severance pay and is a part of the compensation package the first thing a company does when they want to reduce the size of a department is fire all the people for cause that they can to avoid paying severance. If they can get enough people that way, then no layoff, if not they complete the count with layoffs.

Plus if you read the original article about this, it is even more clear that they got rid of this guy not because of the regulation, but to save money. In the original article people that worked for the regulatory agency that monitors this and other employment lawyers that were interviewed said that it is clear that the rule only is supposed to apply to managers and upper level bankers and not people at his level.
 
2012-10-11 09:37:27 AM
So he lied on his application? Sure for a petty crime, but that's not the issue.

/I'm with the bank on this one
 
2012-10-11 09:37:49 AM

President Raygun: The gubmint is pretty freaky weird on this. Obama pardoned a guy last year that had been a convicted a felon, not allowed to vote or own guns, his crime? In 1965 he put a slug in a vending machine at an Army base where he was a soldier, but wait it gets weirder. How did they catch him? The company reported to the slug to the FBI, the FBI then proceeded to put an undercover agent in his barracks posing as a soldier and then lived there for another 6 months until finally the guy used a slug again. BAM! prisoner, kicked out of the army and so on. Seriously, I guess the FBI wasn't very busy in the mid-60's.


I love that story, too! But a few nitpicks:

1) He was a Marine
2) The Secret Service investigates currency crimes, not the FBI
3) He and 16 others were trimming pennies to be used as dimes in vending machines
4) He was not kicked out; he was sent to Vietnam the next year and was honorably discharged 10 years later

Source

Source

Also... coin mutilation is a felony?

mediamacaroni.com

What a felon caught in the act may look like
 
2012-10-11 09:38:00 AM
WF Mortgage Fraud 10-10-2012

So just yesterday WF gets hit with this lawsuit for things that farked over taxpayers but this guy's youthful attempt to bilk a washing machine is where we have to get real tough?
 
2012-10-11 09:40:46 AM

OBBN: Well, with those techs fired it must be very comforting to know that our children are safe and these monsters won't be lurking around their schools.


Meanwhile, those children aren't learning dick because the teachers can't download instructional materials.
...because BellSouth (present-day AT&T) had to fire the line engineer that would have fixed the school's metro Ethernet.

Richard Eggers had (at least from what we've been told) a satisfactory employment record at Wells Fargo. He also went to the trouble of getting a Section 19, which he wouldn't have had to do had the Federal Reserve Board issued a different decision on what constitutes a de minimis offense. (Eggers was incarcerated for measly two days, as opposed to the no-time provision in the regulation.) Wells is just being cheap. Kinda the same reason they won't lower my Visa APR to match the better rates I get from other lenders.
 
2012-10-11 09:46:54 AM

Parthenogenetic: President Raygun: The gubmint is pretty freaky weird on this. Obama pardoned a guy last year that had been a convicted a felon, not allowed to vote or own guns, his crime? In 1965 he put a slug in a vending machine at an Army base where he was a soldier, but wait it gets weirder. How did they catch him? The company reported to the slug to the FBI, the FBI then proceeded to put an undercover agent in his barracks posing as a soldier and then lived there for another 6 months until finally the guy used a slug again. BAM! prisoner, kicked out of the army and so on. Seriously, I guess the FBI wasn't very busy in the mid-60's.

I love that story, too! But a few nitpicks:

1) He was a Marine
2) The Secret Service investigates currency crimes, not the FBI
3) He and 16 others were trimming pennies to be used as dimes in vending machines
4) He was not kicked out; he was sent to Vietnam the next year and was honorably discharged 10 years later

Source

Source

Also... coin mutilation is a felony?

[mediamacaroni.com image 240x320]

What a felon caught in the act may look like


if that was legal, you could just melt down the resulting penny afterwards and sell it for 3 cents. cause it's not really a penny to begin with. just some squashed penny that's not valued as such.
 
2012-10-11 10:01:49 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: if that was legal, you could just melt down the resulting penny afterwards and sell it for 3 cents. cause it's not really a penny to begin with. just some squashed penny that's not valued as such.


Well, here is something I found on the Internet, so it must be true:

Mr. Angelo Rosato reproduced this letter from the Department of the Treasury to Mr. Vance Fowler in his book "Encyclopedia of the Modern Elongated", (ISBN 0-9626996-2-4) ang­ro­s­pu­b[nospam-﹫-backwards]loa­*co­m. The letter was dated July 22, 1980, letterhead: The Department of the Treasury, Office of the Director of the Mint, and is probably the source of many quotes collectors have seen over the years. It reads in part:

"This is in reply to your letter of Jun 20, 1980, concerning United States statutes governing the destruction, melting, or other extramonetary uses of United States coins. You refer to and question the legality of a souvenir machine which compresses coins and returns a souvenir. You refer to Title 18, U. S. C. sections 331 and 475.

As you are already aware, a federal statute in the criminal code of the United States (18 U.S.C. 331), indeed makes it illegal if one "fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens" any U.S. coin. However, being a criminal statute, a fraudulent intent is required for violation. Thus, the mere act of compressing coins into souvenirs is not illegal, without other factors being present.

Section 475, which you refer to in your letter, regarding the attachment of notice or advertisement to legal tender, does not apply to your souvenirs in this case. Your are not impressing or attaching a business or professional card, notice or advertisement to a coin, your are simply making an impression on the coin.

We hope this information answers your question. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Kenneth B. Gubin
Counsel to the Mint.


Source

Personally, I find this almost too good to be true. I mean, Mr. GUBIN, of the MINT?

Anyway, it appears that the penny machine itself is not inducing millions of children to commit felonies, as penny squishing is not illegal if it is not done with intent to commit fraud.

Your scheme, which attempts to exploit the differential between the melt value and face value of currency, would probably be considered fraudulent.

You can check the melt value of US coins at Coinflation.com

/ RON PAUL
 
2012-10-11 10:02:26 AM

jmr61: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

So $29K constitutes "higher cost employees " in your mind?

Damn. Glad I don't work where you do.


You've obviously never worked at a bank.

Unless you're at the corporate level, you get paid peanuts (and yeah, the company constantly looks to fund a way to lower their bottom line at your expense).
 
2012-10-11 10:12:19 AM
So, people with sex predator records are silk getting hired to watch people kids, but this guy got canned for stupid juvenile jackassery from well over a decade before I was even born? I see that we as a society clearly have our prerogatives in order
 
2012-10-11 10:15:41 AM

Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?


What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?
 
2012-10-11 10:16:28 AM

elementalogic: Sounds like a case of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. He committed a petty crime 50 years ago but his half century of good behaviour and clean work record should outweigh that one tiny blemish.


I am sure we are all comfortable with banks deciding what the spirit of the law is rather than following the law as written, right?
 
2012-10-11 10:29:20 AM

elementalogic: Sounds like a case of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. He committed a petty crime 50 years ago but his half century of good behaviour and clean work record should outweigh that one tiny blemish.


No. It's that Wells Fargo didn't trust the FDIC to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

OBBN: Hell, this whole over paranoid background check is just bullshiat. Before I retired from BellSouth Florida phased a law requiring an insanely strict background check on anyone that MIGHT work on a school campus. Since being a telephone tech means you could, in theory, be sent to work on the phones at a school every outside tech was required to be finger printed and background checked. There were a few techs that had close to twenty years on the job that were fired for failing their background checks. The horrible offenses they were guilty of ranged from public urination to stealing a cow, the later one occurred when the tech was 16 and close to 40 years prior.


And a 16 year old stealing a cow sounds like a prank.
 
2012-10-11 10:38:26 AM
How is that heavily regulated free market under the Obama administration working out for you? Lost your job, because a new law meant to protect stupid people from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back? Sorry to hear that man.
 
2012-10-11 10:41:28 AM

MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?


Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.
 
2012-10-11 10:44:08 AM

Krusty_the_Barbarian: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.


Except for the part where the government granted them a waiver, and then they failed to give him his job back.

But that's ok, I get that you really want to believe that overbearing government did this, so let's just go with whatever fits your preconceived notions.
 
2012-10-11 11:02:32 AM

ongbok: MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?

Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.


It doesn't look like it in this case(from looking at WF's career website). There may be a financial advantage to forcing him to reapply, but it doesn't look like he was making an exceptionally high salary that can be replaced by a younger, cheaper employee (as happens in some technical fields), and it doesn't look like they would have been on the hook for company sponsored retirement benefits. This sounds more like a case of having to obey the letter of the law.
 
2012-10-11 11:04:47 AM

udhq: Krusty_the_Barbarian: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.

Except for the part where the government granted them a waiver, and then they failed to give him his job back.

But that's ok, I get that you really want to believe that overbearing government did this, so let's just go with whatever fits your preconceived notions.


Ok, you get that the waiver takes 3 months or longer on average (this case was expiditied), right? So are you saying that the Wells Fargo should not have filled his position when he was fired, that they should fire the person they hired to replace him, or they should just hire him back regardless of whether or not there is a position open for him, and just create a superfluous spot for him (which will be quickly downsized)?
 
2012-10-11 11:06:20 AM

MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?

Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.

It doesn't look like it in this case(from looking at WF's career website). There may be a financial advantage to forcing him to reapply, but it doesn't look like he was making an exceptionally high salary that can be replaced by a younger, cheaper employee (as happens in some technical fields), and it doesn't look like they would have been on the hook for company sponsored retirement benefits. This sounds more like a case of having to obey the letter of the law.


No it sounds like a case of trimming the work force to me. Like I said before when a company that has severance pay as part of the benefits package decides to trim the workforce, before they go to layoffs they will look to fire anyone that they can to avoid paying severance.
 
2012-10-11 11:23:02 AM

ongbok: MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?

Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.

It doesn't look like it in this case(from looking at WF's career website). There may be a financial advantage to forcing him to reapply, but it doesn't look like he was making an exceptionally high salary that can be replaced by a younger, cheaper employee (as happens in some technical fields), and it doesn't look like they would have been on the hook for company sponsored retirement benefits. This sounds more like a case of having to obey the letter of the law.

No it sounds like a case of trimming the work force to me. Like I said before when a company that has severance pay as part of the benefits package decides to trim the workforce, before they go to layoffs they will look to fire anyone that they can to avoid paying severance.


I could believe that, depending on how his indiscretion came to light. If they went out looking for it, you are probably right. if it was brought to them from an outside source, they probably had no choice.
 
2012-10-11 11:29:16 AM

MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?

Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.

It doesn't look like it in this case(from looking at WF's career website). There may be a financial advantage to forcing him to reapply, but it doesn't look like he was making an exceptionally high salary that can be replaced by a younger, cheaper employee (as happens in some technical fields), and it doesn't look like they would have been on the hook for company sponsored retirement benefits. This sounds more like a case of having to obey the letter of the law.

No it sounds like a case of trimming the work force to me. Like I said before when a company that has severance pay as part of the benefits package decides to trim the workforce, before they go to layoffs they will look to fire anyone that they can to avoid paying severance.

I could believe that, depending on how his indiscretion came to light. If they went out looking for it, you are probably right. if it was brought to them from an outside source, they probably had no choice.


The bank knew about this when they hired him. Banks do exhaustive background checks on people. Trust me, I worked for Chase and have many friends that work in HR and Corporate Security for Chase and other large banks. They knew about this and knew that this rule didn't apply to him when he was hired, otherwise they wouldn't have hired him, this rule has been around since the 50's, it is nothing new. They wanted to trim staff so they went looking for dirt on people and found this on him. It would be interesting to see how many other people were fired for things in their background and other stuff like miss use of email around the time he was fired.
 
2012-10-11 11:41:16 AM

ongbok: MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: ongbok: MycroftHolmes: Neondistraction: So basically they just wanted to avoid paying his retirement benefits?

What retirement benefits are you referencing? I was under the impression that most companies used a 401(k) now, which means, at most, they would be saving one years worth of match. Are there healthcare benefits that cost the company when an employee retires?

Most banks also have a pension for employees along with the 401k.

It doesn't look like it in this case(from looking at WF's career website). There may be a financial advantage to forcing him to reapply, but it doesn't look like he was making an exceptionally high salary that can be replaced by a younger, cheaper employee (as happens in some technical fields), and it doesn't look like they would have been on the hook for company sponsored retirement benefits. This sounds more like a case of having to obey the letter of the law.

No it sounds like a case of trimming the work force to me. Like I said before when a company that has severance pay as part of the benefits package decides to trim the workforce, before they go to layoffs they will look to fire anyone that they can to avoid paying severance.

I could believe that, depending on how his indiscretion came to light. If they went out looking for it, you are probably right. if it was brought to them from an outside source, they probably had no choice.

The bank knew about this when they hired him. Banks do exhaustive background checks on people. Trust me, I worked for Chase and have many friends that work in HR and Corporate Security for Chase and other large banks. They knew about this and knew that this rule didn't apply to him when he was hired, otherwise they wouldn't have hired him, this rule has been around since the 50's, it is nothing new. They wanted to trim staff so they went looking for dirt on people and found this on him. It would be interesting to see how many other people were fired for thi ...


If that is the case, your interpretation is likely correct.
 
2012-10-11 11:52:46 AM

MycroftHolmes: udhq: Krusty_the_Barbarian: Summoner101: It sounds more like the banks are using the new regulations to legally get rid of higher cost employees and help their bottom line.

No, it sounds more like they are following a regulation issued by a government that would just LOVE to fine them 1 million dollars a day for keeping a 29k a year employee on the payroll that failed the government mandated background check.

Except for the part where the government granted them a waiver, and then they failed to give him his job back.

But that's ok, I get that you really want to believe that overbearing government did this, so let's just go with whatever fits your preconceived notions.

Ok, you get that the waiver takes 3 months or longer on average (this case was expiditied), right? So are you saying that the Wells Fargo should not have filled his position when he was fired, that they should fire the person they hired to replace him, or they should just hire him back regardless of whether or not there is a position open for him, and just create a superfluous spot for him (which will be quickly downsized)?


Exactly, this case was expedited as it needed to be. That doesn't exactly scream "rigid bureaucracy" to me.

And besides, that's not how these places hire. I live down the street from a WF campus, they have a fairly huge calling floor, with dozens of people manning it at any given time. I get recruiting calls probably once a month for this call service work. What they do is hire a class of 5-10 every couple of weeks, and then at the end of their first week they fire everyone who hasn't made a sale.

If I had to guess, I would say this guy probably just wanted to keep his head down and do his job, and that doesn't really fly with the corporate culture at WF. They hire you for 2 pay grades above your entry level, and if you don't show any signs of interest in advancing, they "coach you out". Kind of crappy way to do business, if you ask me, but the truth is that's becoming more the exception than the rule in corporate America.
 
2012-10-11 11:54:27 AM
Neondistraction.

You're my hero for the day.
 
2012-10-11 12:12:23 PM
Every time you read about Wells Fargo in the news it's something douchy. Why would anyone bank there?
 
2012-10-11 12:44:48 PM

Neondistraction: Yeah, sure, the country that puts more people in jail than China is soft on crime.



LMAO, apples and water chestnuts.

How many people did the US execute compared to China? The answer is under 50 compared to a reported 5,000 (some watchdog agencies think the actual number is much higher). At those rates the US executes 1 in every 6.7 million while China executes 1 in every 260,000.

The US doesn't execute people for drug smuggling. China does. They've executed people for taking bribes (a telecomm exec), corruption, embezzling....they execute people for a lot more reasons than any other country on Earth,.

Go ahead and talk about how much worse the US is on criminals than China.

/find your own citations, they're just a Google away
 
2012-10-11 01:18:04 PM
You know what the funny thing is?

For all the politicians saying they are 'tough on crime' by pushing for more and more background checks, and tightening laws and such, they are actually SOFTER on crime.

By making more laws, and punishing offenders beyond their sentences, they are turning them back to a life of crime. Encouraging more crimes is being soft on crime, not tough on crime.
 
2012-10-11 01:58:34 PM

KidneyStone: Neondistraction: Yeah, sure, the country that puts more people in jail than China is soft on crime.


LMAO, apples and water chestnuts.

How many people did the US execute compared to China? The answer is under 50 compared to a reported 5,000 (some watchdog agencies think the actual number is much higher). At those rates the US executes 1 in every 6.7 million while China executes 1 in every 260,000.

The US doesn't execute people for drug smuggling. China does. They've executed people for taking bribes (a telecomm exec), corruption, embezzling....they execute people for a lot more reasons than any other country on Earth,.

Go ahead and talk about how much worse the US is on criminals than China.

/find your own citations, they're just a Google away


I never said nor meant to imply that the US is worse on criminals than China, that would be silly. In terms of human rights violations they have us beat hands down.

I simply used them as an example of how much more people our country throws in jail than the rest of the world, as a counter to the statement that we are soft on crime. My point is, how can a country that imprisons more of it's population than any other country in the world be labeled as soft on crime?
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report