Reply #103: "She said so far most people think it's a pretty good idea."

[KansDem]

I've heard this excuse before.

A couple of years ago when I was working two half-time jobs, I was constantly on the go from one place to another. I opted to be paid by check as opposed to having direct deposit since it was a matter of just swinging by my bank while out and about. Well, one payday I needed to pay a bill right after I got off work but couldn't get to my bank in time to cash my check so I could pay the bill, so I looked into having my paycheck cashed at my employer's bank just a short walk from where I was working. So I went on my lunch hour, thinking I'd have the cash and could go directly to pay my bill after work.

I endorsed the check and handed it to the teller. She asked me if I had an account with them. I said "no, but my employer does." She said I needed to provide a fingerprint before she would cash the check. I asked, somewhat incredulously, even if my employer has an account with them? She said yes. I said that this check represented money due me by my employer, and I just wanted to redeem this "certificate" for the cash that was rightfully mine. She said only if I gave them a fingerprint.

I turned and walked away. When I got back to work I called them to complain about this policy. I told them I wanted only to redeem the check for money due me by a client of theirs. The person I talked with, a PR person, said "Well, since we started doing this, many businesses said they think it's a good idea. They find it cuts down on criminal activity." I said, "Well, if you really want to cut down on crime, put everybody in jail. I guarantee you, if everybody's in jail, there will be no crime on the streets!"

I got nowhere with the bank, but I do believe the fingerprint requirement has fallen somewhat by the wayside. I am a little concerned about the use of this device for debit cards.