Fees to cash pay check

[windchime]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I got my first paycheck and went to the bank that the check was issued from to cash it. Bank of America.
There was no address on the check to say which branch it was from, it just said cash at any Bank of America.
I was charged $6.00 to cash it, because I don't have an account there. But the check is from Bank of America.
I thought there was a law about cashing paychecks to avoid charges like this. Doesn't the employer have to provide a place to cash your paycheck without fees?

I did some web searching and found that in Calif., Bank of America was sued for this. And so was the employer. Do the same laws apply in Fl.

I read something that said, payment for work should be in cash, or if buy check it would need to be cashed without fees. And if it couldn't be cashed without fees, than the employer must cash it. Is this true in Fl. too?

Thank you.

[cbg]

I'm confused. Your employer gave you a paycheck drawn on the biggest bank in North America. The bank charged you a fee. How is that your employer's fault?

[windchime]

I didn't say it. I read it.

03/18/2004
CA Paycheck-Cashing Fees Called Illegal

California employers are breaking the law if they process their paychecks through banks that charge check-cashing fees to workers who don't hold accounts with the banks, state officials said this week.

The state Department of Industrial Relations issued the statement in response to a San Francisco Chronicle column last Sunday that explored such fees.

Since August 2002, Bank of America has required Californians who don't hold accounts at the bank to pay $5 anytime they want to cash a paycheck issued by a BofA business client. Wells Fargo plans to follow suit on April 1.

The state Department of Industrial Relations said the charges violate Section 212 of the California Labor Code, which requires that payroll checks "be negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount."

"It is clear that every employer who has allowed a fee to be charged for cashing a paycheck is in violation of the labor code," said Dean Fryer, a department spokesman.

The banks are off the hook regarding Section 212, according to the Chronicle's David Lazarus, who wrote the original column. That's because a federal court ruled last year that state laws cannot block a major financial institution from imposing fees for check cashing.

But the banks do have to worry about another part of the labor code, Section 215. It stipulates that any "agent'' of a California employer who violates Section 212 is guilty of a misdemeanor. Fryer told Lazarus for a follow-up column that the department's lawyers are studying whether banks are agents and thus violating the law in their capacity as payroll processors.

[eerelations]

But that's all about California state law, which doesn't cover employers (or employees) in Florida.

[Some Random Guy]

That is a california law that only applies to California. California is barely a part of the US when it comes to their laws for employment and drugs.

A etter solution would be to open your own checking account - which for many banks is free. See Wamu or similar banks.

[windchime]

I know it's Calif. law. My question is what is Fl law?

Here is another posting in Org.



February 5, 2007
No. 2007-1

PAYCHECK PRACTICES CHECKUP

Oregon employers should take a recent California case as a warning to review paycheck practices.

In a recent ruling, a federal judge in California refused to dismiss a class action suit brought under a California statute regulating paychecks. Fleming v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67749. The California statute required employers to pay employees with paychecks that can be cashed in-state without a discount or fee. Dollar Tree Stores, however, had issued paychecks from an out-of-state bank that had no California branch, resulting in some employees incurring check-cashing fees and waiting periods for receipt of funds.

Oregon has a similar law, ORS § 652.110, which requires a paycheck to be "payable without discount in cash on demand at some bank or other established place of business in the county where the same is issued." Although we know of no recent suits brought under this Oregon law, it is similar to California's law.
Washington has no similar statute.

Our recommendation:

Oregon employers should review their payment procedures to ensure that paychecks are redeemable without additional fees in every county they employ people. If paychecks are issued from a bank with a branch in the county, an employer should make sure the bank will cash paychecks without charge to any employee. If an employer uses a bank not located within the county, the employer, as the judge in the Fleming case suggested, could comply with the law in one of several ways:

Offering to cash paychecks at one of its own locations,

Retaining a check-cashing service with fees charged to the employer, or

Making arrangements with a local bank to pay any check-cashing fees.

[windchime]

Here is another state:

Check-Cashing Fees Imposed by Banks for Non-Account Holders May Create Legal Liability for Employers
By: Peg O’Brien
Email: [email]mobrien@devinemillimet.com[/email]
Phone: 603.695.8631

September 19, 2008
According to New Hampshire’s Department of Labor, some employers in New Hampshire may be subjecting themselves to criminal and civil liability by issuing checks to employees for the payment of wages drawn on banks that charge a check cashing fee to non-account holders.
Under New Hampshire’s RSA 275:43, all employers are required to offer their employees the option of being paid wages by check without incurring any fees. As a result, if an employer issues paychecks drawn on a particular bank, then their employees must be able to cash these checks at the employer’s bank or elsewhere without incurring any costs. Traditionally, employers have been able to meet this statutory requirement through their local bank – employees like any other payee could cash their paychecks at the employer’s bank without paying a fee. Recently, however, one of the larger banks in the area has begun charging non-account holders a $5.00 fee for cashing checks. If an employee has no bank account of his or her own, and is dependent on the employer’s bank to cash his or her paycheck, then this fee can cause trouble for the employer and subject it to civil and criminal liability.

[cbg]

Florida has next to no wage and hour laws of its own outside of a higher than Federal minimum wage.

[TimStudiesLaw]

Perhaps you could narrow your results by adding "Florida" to your search string.

[eerelations]

Yeah really, if you're able to come up with all these articles on your own, what are you bothering us for?

[windchime]

Originally Posted by eerelations

Yeah really, if you're able to come up with all these articles on your own, what are you bothering us for?

If I am bothering you, why do you bother to answer?

I thought this was a help fourm. I asked a question because I couldn't find it on my search.
My search included the words: Florida Federal labor laws.

[ecmst12]

It sounds like your question is, 'I couldn't find any federal or Florida laws preventing this, so can I pretend these laws from other states apply to me?'

The answer is, No. Laws from states you do not live or work in do not apply to you or your company any more then laws from other countries. In your state, it is legal for the bank to charge you the $6.

[cbg]

If you're unable to find one, then the overwhelming likelihood is that there is no such law in Florida. As I already told you, Florida has almost nothing in the way of wage and hour laws.

[windchime]

I believe I am one step closer to finding this law, and before you all jump on me, I do understand this Fl. Statute applies to the labor pool. However it is a Fl. Statue. What do you know Fl. does have laws.

The 2008 Florida Statutes

CHAPTER 448

GENERAL LABOR REGULATIONS

PART I

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (ss. 448.01-448.110)

PART II

LABOR POOL ACT (ss. 448.20-448.26)

PART I

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

(2) A labor pool shall:

(a) Compensate day laborers for work performed in the form of cash, or commonly accepted negotiable instruments that are payable in cash, on demand at a financial institution, and without discount.

(b) Compensate day laborers at or above the minimum wage, in conformance with the provision of s. 448.01. In no event shall any deductions, other than those permitted by federal or state law, bring the worker's pay below minimum wage for the hours worked.

[anteater]

Why did you not post the definitions:

448.22 Definitions.--For the purposes of this part:

(1) "Labor pool" means a business entity that operates a labor hall by one or more of the following methods:

(a) Contracting with third-party users to supply day laborers to them on a temporary basis.

(b) Hiring, employing, recruiting, or contracting with workers to fulfill these temporary labor contracts for day labor.

(c) Fulfilling any contracts for day labor in accordance with this subsection, even if the entity also conducts other business.

(2) "Day labor" means temporary labor or employment that is occasional or irregular for which the worker is employed for not longer than the time period required to complete the temporary assignment for which the individual worker was hired, although an individual may be eligible for additional temporary assignments when available.

(3) "Labor hall" means a central location maintained by a labor pool where day laborers assemble and are dispatched to work for a third-party user.

(4) "Business entity" means any individual, corporation, business partnership, firm, institution, or association.

(5) "Third-party user" means a business entity that uses the services of a day laborer provided by a labor pool.