[mindslight]

Access to banking is indeed a problem, but pragmatically there is always cash or a non-fraudulent [0] check drawn on a local bank. And for tips specifically, they can just be bundled with the rest of the pay rather than creating a second problem.

[0] for example checks drawn on Bank of America accounts are generally fraudulent, as BoA refuses to pay the specified amount when presented for payment at a branch. They're trying to run a similar scam to the ATM card fee described in the article, but they're doing it with the much older technology of checks and thereby inducing their customers to commit check fraud.

[exhilaration]

Why single out Bank of America? Nearly every single (big) bank will refuse to cash a check for non-customers. The days of taking a signed check to a local branch for cashing have been over for decades. I'd love to find out why this changed, I suspect it's because they can go after their own customers if a check turns out to be fraudulent but not some guy walking off the street.

[mindslight]

It seems like another illegal scam that will rake in a decade of ill gotten gains, then there will be a class action slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again, while they move on to the next decade's scams. The entire nature of a check is that it is a promise that a third party custodian will pay a specific amount, and the custodian then demanding to take a cut directly invalidates that. I suspect it's monkey-see-monkey-do, unless there is some behind the scenes rule change (Check 21?) that would seem to condone such nonsense.

[rnk]

Can you explain. You left off your reference, but are you saying boa refuses to pay legit checks or what exactly?

[mindslight]

It was a reference to clarification, which was the following paragraph.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/banking/where-to-cash-check-wit...

Apparently it's not just BoA, but also Chase, Suntrust, TD, and Wells Fargo now want to demand a nonsensical "check cashing fee" to cash a check drawn on one of their accounts. But the entire purpose of a check is that it is an order to your bank to pay someone an exact amount of money, and thus subtracting such a fee is impermissable. The proper way to assess such a fee would be to the account holder as an additional amount out of their account.

If you're a customer of one of these banks and write someone a check for "$100.00", they are seemingly unable to present it to your bank and receive $100 as you had promised. As such, you have written a bad check and stand to be prosecuted for check fraud.

Of course only the powerless will get tripped up by this corner case, as it's much easier for anyone with a bank account to present the check to their own bank who will turn around and present it via ACH. But I'd love to see someone in just the right position record their interaction with the dishonoring bank, return the dishonored check to the payer, and demand a proper payment plus a $35 rejected check fee.

[rnk]

Wow, that's horrible. Yes, a huge tax on people without bank accounts.