Our wages - ours to access?

Free State Project Forum

264568 Posts in 21128 Topics by 34838 Members / Latest Member: EssedeCache

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2013, 09:44:40 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Question 1: How many of us are as yet aware that receiving payment of your wages, UC benefits or court-ordered payments by way of so-called payroll cards, is NOT THE SAME as having a bank account?

The bankers know this (that your rights to that money, and the relevant information about the status of that money, are not the same as your checking or savings account which might also come with a debit card as a convenience feature), but

Question 2 Do we, the average American citizen, know what they know about this animal? Apparently NOT (see below list of 29 states) !! And if not,

Question 3 What are the implications of sweeping measures that might, in the not-too-distant future, be instituted, without warning, by the large banks whose clients' accounts are accessed by your payroll debit card, in the event of a run on the banks? Or in the event of a hyperinflated currency?

YOUR STATE MIGHT ALREADY BE REQUIRING THIS BE SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, if you are among those so unfortunate to be residing in the listed states in this paragraph. According to the American Payroll Association (a ~30-year old corporation based in San Antonio, Texas) it is already law (meaning labor law, or employment law) that any employer who wants to, may REQUIRE, as a condition of your going to work there (based on your customary place of employment being in that state), you the employee or prospective employee, to receive your pay solely in electronic form, in twenty-nine (29) states including

Alabama

Arizona

Colorado

Delaware

Florida

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Maine

Michigan

Missouri

Mississippi

Nebraska

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin.

This means that if your work place is located in one of these above-listed so-called "direct-deposit mandated" states, you might find out, to your unpleasant surprise, that your job opportunity at that coveted employer is conditional upon you giving up a large measure of privacy and control over your earnings (what the feds and the state hasn't already taxed away from you, that is)!!

Source: American Payroll Association publication entitled, Green-states-20110425.pdf

The American Bankers' Association is of no help to citizens seeking answers. You have to be a "member banker" before they are willing to talk to you about how banking works in America. Contact the F.D.I.C., the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or your state's banking association, the boiler-plate response goes.

How much outrage are we willing to lie down and accept?? It's pitiful what the American people have been conned into, in the form of abusive labor laws that allow employers, under the guise of "save a tree" and conserving administrative expenses to stay globally competitive, to buy into the electronic banking gambit. When you "have direct deposit," is it something that makes you sleep easier at night, knowing that your employer knows exactly where your funds are, and how to, should a twist of regulation or necessity or reasoning arise, confiscate them at will?

Experts out there on the subject of banking and payroll debit card "agreements," please comment and cite your sources.

Those of us blessed enough to reside, as I do, in Pennsylvania or one of the other "non-mandated" states such as (praise God) New Hampshire, what amount of lobbying are we willing to do so as to turn back, at the state legislature level, this labor-law encroachment of our God-given rights to the product of our life's energies?

In fact, not only are we supposed to be paid in real money NOT subject to private taxation in the form of contractually-mandated "atm fees," "inquiry fees," "decline fees," God gave us the right to be paid on a daily basis , as our work is rendered to our employers (it's in Leviticus, chapter 19, at verse 13).

But how many employers actually respect and honor this law?

Thats why Jesus invented payroll cards.

Imposing a restriction on contract is libertarian in what manner?

Dear Mr. Mercier,

You have a question regarding being consistent with the ideology of libertarianism.

Far from trying to conform to the norm of what I might think most people reading the post would call a libertarian viewpoint, I publish what I believe will enhance the cause of liberty. I hear you trying to impose a restriction on what I might say, based on your failure to understand the goal suggested in my message.

The goal is to see that the oligarchy's aims are thwarted. Oligarchy is government by a few powerful individuals. It's what we have going on in America, and it stinks. With oligarchy, the few in control of the government keep control over what news we hear or find out about, what occupations we can pursue, the value of our money, etc., etc. I'm passionate about the cause of freedom and liberty in America, and I find it repugnant that we somehow can't any longer with confidence go to work for a company and be paid in forms of payment that respect our rights (freedoms) to privacy and access to our earnings.

Mandatorily receiving my wages in the form of direct deposit or electronic money on a Comdata card that doesn't belong to me, allows the holders of that bank account where the money actually is deposited, huge amounts of control and surveillance over my personal financial habits.

The freedom, is in being free to work where I am not required to sign one of those contracts. There's the restriction that I would seek to "impose," if you want to label it that. Impose a "restriction" on the abuses being perpetrated on the rest of us, by the CEO's of large employers? You bet I'm in favor of such a reform.

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 28, 2012, 12:46:58 am

Imposing a restriction on contract is libertarian in what manner?

In the manner its in the contract, if you don't like it then negotiate for better terms.

Nope, laws that interfere with private contracts between employers and employees are anti-liberty.

If some employer wants to require that I accept electronic payments to work for him, that's his right. If he wants to require that I accept payments in live chickens, that's his right.

If I want to insist that I will only accept FRN's, that's my right. If I want to insist that I will only work for payments made in silver, that's my right.

What agreement we reach, is solely between us. Anyone attempting to interfere with that agreement is an enemy of liberty.

Frankly I don't see how using a Condata card is any less convenient or restrictive than being issued a paper check.

Just stop at the bank (or any ATM) on the way home from work on payday, get your pay in green pieces of paper, take them home and stuff them in your mattress.

In any case, since this discussion has nothing to do with the Free State Project or New Hampshire, I'm moving it to Off-Topic and Misc.

Quote from: greap on January 28, 2012, 10:05:28 am

Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 28, 2012, 12:46:58 am

Imposing a restriction on contract is libertarian in what manner?

In the manner its in the contract, if you don't like it then negotiate for better terms.

The OP was suggesting it be restricted through statute... at least, that was my understanding.

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.