BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Can they do this? (Corporate Bollocks)

  
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
17:18 / 12.12.02
So anyway due to a personal economic down turn I ended up following my childhood dream and going to work for a huge multi national bank on a fixed term basis. No ideal but one has to live. Contract begins to run out and nobody's calling back about the various other applications I've sent out, bank offers full time contract. Okay take that and continue to look for work, not a problem. No part of the contract is I have to open an account with them to recieve my pay. Alarms go off. Now as it happens I bank with the same bank I work for (due to a disagreement with the evil fucking scum of Natwest during my last student years) but the contract appears to be if you don't bank with us you don't get a contract.

Now maybe you're thinking big deal. My colleagues are, they're just going about opening their accounts and making arrangements to have the money transferred into their own accounts and my manager was less than impressed when I raised the issue. The thing is this doesn't really effect me that much and it's a minor irritation to sort it out but is this not a bank coercing it's employees into using it's services? I can certainly see many situations where a bank could make more from an employee than they would ever pay him (mortgages etc). If you worked for a supermarket and they told you you had to shop there would you? I mean by all means offer incentives to your employees but coerce them?

So my question is, is this legal, even if it's in the contract (I know you can't sign away statuory rights) or is this coercive? And am I making a mountain out of a mole hill or should I just shut up and get on with it?

Whilst we're on the subject at my work we have to take exams on subjects regularly. Now I was revising for one today when I was given some urgent work. SO I asked when I was supposed to revise and the reply was why hadn't I revised in my own time, to which I replied because I wasn't paid to. Now a number of people including the person I was speaking to admits that having to do unpaid work in their own time sucks but hey what can you do? And they act like it's just part of the game. This is described as doing the company a favour. What part of a multi national bank which makes more money in a year than many countries needs my fucking help! What is this all about? What are people thinking? This has most certainly not always been the way. Fuck's sake.

Anyway I had a good day at work today, how about you.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
18:16 / 12.12.02
if you work for bloodsuckers, don't be surprised if they hang around yr veins... slobbering...

i have no idea what the legal position is here - can imagine it's not legal for them to specify what you do with the money you've legitimitely earnt... but i also think that if you took a stand you'd find yrself out of a job before too long - for something *apparently* unrelated.

what is scary is yr workmates' creepy stepford employees rictus-smile conformity. considered going postal?
 
 
Linus Dunce
18:37 / 12.12.02
Well, I suppose if you really pushed it, to the House of Lords, say, IMHO they probably couldn't force you to, er, stay with them.

This stuff happens a lot. If you worked in a clothes chain store, you'd likely be forced to buy clothes from them to wear to work. And I'm guessing you'd have to drive a Ford if you worked for a large Ford showroom.

In fact, people in general are forced to get bank rather than building society or PO accounts so they can be paid by BACS or whatever it's called, so you could say an element of choice has already gone for most people, whether they agree with the ethics of High Street banking or not.

Anyway, none of the above makes it right. I think you're correct -- it wasn't always like this. I blame Mrs T (mainly because it's easy). Changed attitudes to work and employment while allowing the managerial classes to continue thinking they were masters of the universe. They expect you to pitch in but still remain exempt from returning the commitment themselves. If you complain, you will probably be described as having an "attitude problem."

I think, though, you just don't like it there. In fact, I think you hate it. I bet there's probably something out there that you'd like a lot more, something you wouldn't mind or even notice doing homework for. I hope you find it!
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
18:47 / 12.12.02
Oddly the job doesn't bother me that much, it's not challenging (I'm on the internet side of things), I get to e-mail my mates (though that's on the way out soon) and I genuinely like the people I work with, also I have the reputation of being difficult so people tend to steptoe around me. The people aren't really Stepford, they just think that's the way things are.

Yes it's not my ideal job but it does pay the bills which in turn finance my MA, which will hopefully lead to better things. I'm just hacked off by the way this paradigm is going. Oddly enough I've been doing a bit of reading about feudalism recently and how it's an inadequate term to describe society in the the middle ages, the closest thing I find to actual feudalism is modern corporate franchises.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
18:47 / 12.12.02
Sadly, once you have your account at your workplace, they can also monitor whether you manage your account in a responsible manner.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
18:48 / 12.12.02
Well that cheers me up. Time to use my switch card to buy book on sheep worrying and corporate terrorism.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
18:51 / 12.12.02
Malheuresment, it is part of the (corporate) game. No, you're not doing them a favour, but Said UnNamed Corporate Bank would argue that they are doing a favour by hiring you.

Don't know what to tell you. Other than yes, it sucks. I guess what I'd say is how much do you want to play the game, and what other options in today's economy do you have? I'm not saying that to be bleak, it's just sometimes you really don't want to play the fucking game. I never have, and trust me, it's led to trouble, and poverty at times. If I were you, I'd ask myself exactly how much of your soul is this bank sucking away, percentage-wise? How much soul-sucking is acceptable to you? And yes, is there another employment option? Perhaps just slog through and continue working there for now, while you continue to look for something better.

As far as the signing up for their bank thing goes, that sounds pretty annoying, but I'm sure the Corporate Philosophy behind it is, they want you to Believe In the Product and also Understand the Product so you can adequately Deal With Clients. Just a guess.

Good luck, and sorry to hear about your trouble, 'cuz man that sounds sucky!

Love,
An Underpaid Yet Relatively Happy TEFL Teacher
 
 
Cherry Bomb
18:57 / 12.12.02
Ooooh, good point, Zocher. Yucko! I hate all this credit-report checking and crap that goes on in the hiring games these days. Thanks for the trust, Corporate Masters! Like I need a drug test to stock shelves at Wal-Mart! If anything, that's a job where you SHOULD be stoned on the job in order to enjoy it!

Grr.
 
 
grant
19:13 / 12.12.02
It doesn't seem like it'd be illegal unless most people only had one bank account.
I don't, and I don't know anyone who does.

The clause seems more akin to sleazy sports bars who *require* their bartenders to get up and dance during breaks to, you know, increase the party atmosphere.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
19:57 / 12.12.02
Actually that wouldn't be so bad but sadly the frown on us dancing on our desks.
 
 
.
08:47 / 13.12.02
If I was you, I'd open an account, get paid into it, and then set up a regular transfer to transfer the money into your real account. After all, I'd be distinctly uncomfortable about my employer knowing how I managed my earnings...

The clause seems more akin to sleazy sports bars who *require* their bartenders to get up and dance during breaks to, you know, increase the party atmosphere.

It seems more comparable to clothes stores which require their employees to buy and wear that store's clothes...
 
 
Char Aina
09:41 / 13.12.02
except that clothes stores are getting you to buy a uniform, something that occurs in a lot of preoffesions. also their products dont have the ramifications for privacy invasion, and as the original post said, making more money than they pay you.
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:28 / 13.12.02
except that clothes stores are getting you to buy a uniform, something that occurs in a lot of preoffesions. also their products dont have the ramifications for privacy invasion, and as the original post said, making more money than they pay you.

Absolutely, but as for making more money than they pay you, that's why you're there, isn't it?
 
 
Seth
12:48 / 13.12.02
I have exactly the same deal, mate. They'll also check your account conduct when you're off sick to ensure that you're not faking it and off shopping instead of working. My employer also requests that every employee makes you take two weeks off work at one go at least once a year, so they can check your finances for irregularites (the idea is to prevent fraud and money laundering). Heh: and there's also a potential prison sentence for failing to report possible instances of fraud, even if you didn't realise. You have so much to look forward to!
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:38 / 14.12.02
The bank at our bank clause of the contract comes under the conflict of interests issue. Essentially you have to be in the same boat as your customers for the obvious reasons. On a business level I can understand why they do this although I still find the practice somewhat distasteful.

My advice, if this the only thing stopping you from taking the position, is this. Open the account and then on payday, withdraw all of the money in cash to deposit into any other account that you want to hold. Don't do a transfer as they will then know of any other financial institutions you do business with and this can call into question your position at the bank. The only exception to this is for purchases of such things as porn site subscriptions and purchases at adult shops.

If questioned about the cash aspect then just act luddite and make out that you prefer to perform transactions in hard cash. If asked about fetish and porn, draw them into being as explicit as possible about their knowledge of your transactions. Talk openly and frankly and if possible be lacivious. I can guarantee raised eybrows and closed mouths unless they want an industrial tribunal on their hands.

The downside is that you can't fuck up, even once.
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
12:37 / 15.12.02
Originally posted by Ignatius_J

"Absolutely, but as for making more money than they pay you, that's why you're there, isn't it?"

Yeah, sorry I didn't make myself very clear. I am supposed to bring in more maney than I cost obviously, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when the bank then makes what it pays me back on the money I've earnt from it, if you see what I mean (I'm not sure I've explained it very well.)

Originally posted by expressionless

"I have exactly the same deal, mate. They'll also check your account conduct when you're off sick to ensure that you're not faking it and off shopping instead of working. My employer also requests that every employee makes you take two weeks off work at one go at least once a year, so they can check your finances for irregularites (the idea is to prevent fraud and money laundering). Heh: and there's also a potential prison sentence for failing to report possible instances of fraud, even if you didn't realise. You have so much to look forward to!"

I didn't know about the checking of the account conduct, again I don't understand how that can be anything other than a huge breach of privacy, or that they can do that without my permission. I have to take a couple hours of my own quite precious time this PM to go through my damn contract, so I may come across that later on. As for the money laundering thing, yeah I'm aware of that though it's just if you fail to act on a suspicion (though I work in the UK, not sure if you work elsewhere with different rules).

Tea Boy, that's the thing I can't not take this position, I can't afford not to, especially at the moment. So I have to end up both swallowing both my pride and my morals (I don't mean morals but my mind has gone a complete blank for the word I'm looking for) in the name of survival and it's not as if they're that ridiculous or unreasonable, I feel that it's this corporate culture that is invasive (and illegal). And anybody questioning about what I do with my money after I'm paid is going to get a mouthful of abuse, followed by an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal (I've already had on successful trip to tribunal, I wouldn't mind another).

What the hell happened to do a job, get paid for it and go home?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:14 / 15.12.02
I think that the legality of this is a grey area. As far as I'm aware, and may very well be wrong, it's not illegal for them to be invasive in this manner as long as you agree to the level of invasion and that they don't mismanage any information that they derive from it.
 
 
Seth
13:15 / 15.12.02
This is my advice: chill. We live in a culture in which we must compromise. We have to pick our battles. What helps me is thinking about what I'm able to fund with what I earn: the good shit that is supported by my job. It's compromise within acceptable parameters, and as son as it's unacceptable it's time to change jobs.

Send me a PM if you want to know more about my employer. Oh, and join the Union. If you're UK based, chances are it's Unifi, in which case you can get fucking amazing discounts off computers (literally hundreds of pounds).
 
  
Add Your Reply