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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report