Heartland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6482979.stm

The BBC wrote:The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) has warned its UK staff that they must have their primary bank account with the firm or face disciplinary action.

In a letter obtained by union Amicus, a senior executive told staff salaries must be paid into an RBS-run account.

"Failure to do so will represent a breach of group policy," it said.

The bank said its policy was in line with other leading banks but Amicus said it was taking legal advice, accusing RBS of "heavy-handedness".

is that legal?

very poor form

Is it fcuk!

That's like saying to a prof footy player that they are not allowed to support other teams right?
Or, if you work in mc donalds, you can only eat crap.

Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

itnAklipse wrote:Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

For the first time I see no bit of an error in one of your postings.

eotunun wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

For the first time I see no bit of an error in one of your postings.

It’s not an uncommon practice, I’m afraid.

I work with a bank, and on joining I had to open an account with my employer for my wages to be paid into, but at that time (about 10 years ago) I didn’t have many outgoings (or debt!) so it wasn’t too much bother. If managed correctly by a bank, it is probably an ideal way to manage sales opportunities within the workforce.

Whilst I also know of people moving accounts without any problems, my employer asks us to try and use their own ATM’s, to save costs to competitors – I reckon that’s just good housekeeping – it’s not forced.

However, I can understand the problems that arise with a takeover, especially for people who have worked with the original company for a considerable time. Without knowing the ins and outs, I would imagine that it wouldn’t be a term of their contract, and can’t really be enforceable.

eotunun wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

For the first time I see no bit of an error in one of your postings.

I've read it four times now and I still don't understand it

It's definitely an uncompetitive practice, but would probably require a test case to establish a definite legal position.

It's also a case of one's employer attempting to enforce an undue level of control over one's personal life.

eotunun wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

For the first time I see no bit of an error in one of your postings.

Seconded!

IZ.

First Direct enforce the same policy (about employee accounts, not eating crap).

It's a bad world and it smells funny. The smell's getting worse by the day.

James Blast wrote:

eotunun wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Working in mcdonald's is such a breach of civility and ethics that i would suggest it only just they can only eat crap themselves for selling that stuff to others.

For the first time I see no bit of an error in one of your postings.

I've read it four times now and I still don't understand it

Blame it on youth, age or the society?
Oderr would I be morre underrstandable when shpeaking wiss Akzent?

That's ridiculous.

I suppose they could enforce "we'll only pay wages into one of our own accounts", but what's to stop an employee from opening an account elsewhere and setting up a payment to transfer all wages across every month? Or for that matter, from transferring their wages into the account they've had for years and gives them more "perks" than the work account?

They're just breeding resentment by enforcing a petty nonsensical rule. Way to boost staff morale guys!

Don't bank workers have written into the T&Cs of their contracts that their level of borrowing repayments can't exceed a certain percentage of their salary? ie they're supposed to be setting an example to the rest of us.

Presumably by maintaining a main account with your banking employer, said employer can monitor your borrowings and repayments as per the terms of your contract.

I totally agree with what markfiend has already said.
plus if RBS accounts are so good why do they feel the need to use forcefull tactics ?

Johnny Rev 7.0 wrote:Don't bank workers have written into the T&Cs of their contracts that their level of borrowing repayments can't exceed a certain percentage of their salary? ie they're supposed to be setting an example to the rest of us.

These are the same banks that encourage us all to use credit cards.
the staff are emplyed to do a job not be some sort of investment marta!

Alas, an employer can place almost any conditions on employment - you have to wear a suit, you have to do at least one weekend shift every 3 months, we will read all your emails, whatever. As long as the conditions cannot be proved to be unreasonable (like you have to sleep with the boss) then there's nothing that can be done about it. Bottom line: if you don't like the conditions, then feel free to seek alternative employment.
My current employer insists on background checks, drug tests, and read-only access to its employees' brokerage accounts. I may not like it, but if I want to work there then I have to suck it up.

Pista wrote:That's like saying to a prof footy player that they are not allowed to support other teams right?

Not quite - it's more like saying that if you play footy for Liverpool then we might ask some serious questions as to why you're a Leeds Utd season ticket holder. There are plenty of work-arounds - have an account to pay your salary into, and then a direct debit to pay it to another account, or withdraw almost everything from that account every month and pay it in somewhere else (they cannot tell you what to do with your money after they've paid it out).

Sounds like Big (f*cking) Brother to me. B@stards.

EvilBastard wrote:Bottom line: if you don't like the conditions, then feel free to seek alternative employment.

Word.

But it can be used as an excuse; IMO employers have a moral duty (although not a legal duty) not to be totally sh!tty to their employees.