RBS Blackmailing Staff

I don't see the problem really. They only require them to hold an RBS account for paying salaries into. I'm sure it avoids extra costs in admin so overall the company and employees benefit. It doesn't say they're not allowed one and that they can't simply transfer the cash.

I know at first glance it's a bit odd, but when you think about it, a bank would surely prefer their own accounts as it's probably saving a hell of a lot of money in admin etc.
 
That's harsh and it does indeed sound like blackmail. Though the same rings true for Alliance & Leicester I applied for a job with them and was told that I had to have an account with them so that they could pay wages into it, any other account was not acceptable.

EDIT:Indeed I do agree that it saves them money with admin etc, but its still a bit harsh ?

Without hijacking the thread did anyone see that program about fraud @ Barclay's?

Kiz
 
I think it is standard practice for quite a few banks.

I started working at HSBC a couple of years ago and I'm sure I had to do this as well (can't really remember fully as I had quit on my third day :D )

From that article it seems that they explain this requirement during the interview stage and for it to reach a disciplinary level then I'd assume that the employee would be in breach of contact

i.e. I'd assume it is in their contract that they must have their salary paid into a RBS account

Think this issue will be blown out of proportion
 
I think it is common practice in Retail Banking. My wife works for a branch of HSBC and before she got a transfer to HSBC from HFC (Group Company), she was told in order for her to get the job she would have to open an account for her wages to be paid into.

I personally was annoyed by this as it is a way for them to make more money. They simply transfer from one account to another, it stays within the bank.... they don't lose out.

All i can say is, I hope the RBS employees stand up for themselves and the unions fight their corner. They will have my support and my wifes.
 
kmistry said:
That's harsh and it does indeed sound like blackmail. Though the same rings true for Alliance & Leicester I applied for a job with them and was told that I had to have an account with them so that they could pay wages into it, any other account was not acceptable.

EDIT:Indeed I do agree that it saves them money with admin etc, but its still a bit harsh ?

Without hijacking the thread did anyone see that program about fraud @ Barclay's?

Kiz

Forcing staff to have an account with them is a common tactic with banks.

And that program?... I was involved in the making of it ;)
 
I work at RBS. Although you have to open a bank account with them, you get a free upgrade to a royalties account, which usually costs around 15 quid a month.
 
kmistry said:
Really?? You legend please tell more!

I'm off out at the moment, but if you want to catch me on MSN you are more than welcome :)

Address in profile :)
 
I always thought part of the perks of a banking job were cheaper products and "better" accounts.

Cant see why you wouldnt bank with the guys you worked with? They all rip you off in the end.
 
I hope this kind of action gets stamped on by the unions. If you support the argument that banks can dictate what bank account your salary is paid into, why can't any employer? As afterall, it would be a saving for them too. Do we have to change our bank accounts every time we move job, regardless of the financial implications? What about people who operate joint bank accounts, do they have to open multiple current accounts just to keep their employers happy? Whats next, employers dictating what insurance or mortgage you can have?

I work for a company that employess over 150,000 people. They don't feel the need to take such action. Whats makes banks feel they have a right to?
 
Nothing new here? I worked at HSBC 4 years ago for 12 months and even back then I had to open an HSBC account and have my salary paid in there. I was free to transfer it to my normal current account after that but I just stayed with the bank I worked for as it was easier to get round charges and you got staff rates on loans, etc :D
 
I assume when the staff applied for their job it was in their contract and they then signed and agreed to it, whats the problem? And as has been said before staff are usually given perks along with their accounts so it makes sense really to use the bank you work for.
 
jezsoup said:
I assume when the staff applied for their job it was in their contract and they then signed and agreed to it, whats the problem? And as has been said before staff are usually given perks along with their accounts so it makes sense really to use the bank you work for.

But thats part of the issue, they are now chasing those people who don't have it in their contract. They took over Direct Line and Churchill insurance and are now saying 'open an account or face disciplinary action'.
 
Last edited:
jezsoup said:
I assume when the staff applied for their job it was in their contract and they then signed and agreed to it, whats the problem? And as has been said before staff are usually given perks along with their accounts so it makes sense really to use the bank you work for.

Just becuase something is in a contract does not make it lawful. The recent issue of bank charges being a good example. Otherwise, what's to stop car companies forcing employees to driver their brand of car to work.

jezsoup said:
And as has been said before staff are usually given perks along with their accounts so it makes sense really to use the bank you work for.

I agree that the accounts being offered might me good, but that's still a persona decision for the employee to make.
 
peter_hutson said:
Just becuase something is in a contract does not make it lawful. The recent issue of bank charges being a good example. Otherwise, what's to stop car companies forcing employees to driver their brand of car to work.



I agree that the accounts being offered might me good, but that's still a persona decision for the employee to make.

There is nothing to say you HAVE to work for a particular bank. They are free to choose who they hire, and if that was a condition for commencement of employment then if you do not agree, you could have refused to work for them in the first place.
 
Barclays have been doing the same for many many years. A lot of the people I know who work there just transfer their entire salary straight back out again to another account at a different bank.

IIRC it's also a condition of their employment that their Barclays account is not allowed to go overdrawn. If it does, the employee receives a written warning. Three warnings and it's P45 time.....
 
Ethically, I suppose it's good for workers generally not to be advertising/endorsing a product that they would not themselves use. Shouldn't be forced into it, though. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom