Two Thumbs up for Bank of America

[Wapiti]

No Thumbs, no service at Bank of America (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Incidents like this baffle my mind. The guy has no arms, hands, fingers and they still wouldn't cash a check for him without a thumb print. This went all the way up to the branch manager who still denied the request. You gotta follow the rules damnit! No exceptions! What are people thinking, your thoughts?

[Valiyn]

It seems to be a security issue. They use thumb prints for identification as well as fingerprint checks with the police. Not everyone has dna samples, eye scans, and other forms of identification on file somewhere, but most do have thumbprints on file. My guess is the cost of investing in alternative security for one person is more then his doing business with them would bring in.

[themuzicman]

I'm thinking we need to stop treating everyday people like criminals, thumbs or not.

If memory serves, this is a federal requirement, so the BoA may not have had a choice in the matter. Either way, it's a dumb rule.

[loosefanbelt]

Large. Stoopid. Companies.

[SelfMadeBum]

Rules are rules are rules.

Pricks

[Seriously]

No it's not a federal requirement, I looked it up.

It's idiotic. And sad. People don't have the guts to do the right thing but instead continue to toe the line even when face to face with the stupidity of their rules. How in the world can you tell a man without hands he can't cash a check made out to him because he doesn't have thumbs. After he offers valid state approved ID.

[Cincinnatus]

The comedy is writing itself at this point. It's not necessarily the story itself, but the one-liner responses. I'll behave.

How in the world can you tell a man without hands he can't cash a check made out to him because he doesn't have thumbs. After he offers valid state approved ID.

With an honest review of the story, this seems reasonable. State issued licenses and identification have authenticity measures on them, and he can demonstrate he has no thumbs. Are the rules really that set in stone?

[LionsPride]

I second the comment about stop treating customers like criminals. I don't shop at stores that require my personal information to return an item. Why should I have to provide a phone number, address and name to return an item when my cash was sufficient to buy it in the first place? I think asking for thumb prints for banking sounds more like "you are a criminal until proven otherwise" than it is protecting the accounts of its customers.

When the branch manager realized he couldn't give a thumb print, she said he could bring in his wife or open a checking account.
Valdez says that's not the way they would treat someone who doesn't have prosthetic arms and he refused to do that.

As for the alternatives, open an account or come down with the wife, those sound like the standard hoops a person with thumbs would be expected to do if they wanted to decline providing a print. I think it's a terrible policy over all, but assuming the extra security was somehow valid, I still don't think that those hoops are appropriate as a way to handle people that have no fingers. A person that declines to provide a print was still offered the same level of service as everyone else; they chose to decline. Because a person without prints cannot comply, essentially they are not offered the same level of service as the people with fingerprints.

[SeaCzar]

I am with those who loathe Bank of America. I specfically single them out as a bank I will not deal with. They treat their customers like criminals. Fuck those assholes. I hope they get more press like this. Its sickening.

[AaronSheffield]

While on the surface it seems like the B of A people should have been more accommodating, we need to consider the realities of the situation here.

1) The thumb-print requirement is a corporate policy that a branch manager does not have any authority to override.
2) The branch manager would have been risking her job by allowing a non-customer to cash a cheque without a thumb-print.
3) Before the institution of the thumbprint requirement, most banks simply refused to cash cheques for non-customers.

While the policy may well be very bad in this particular instance, I certainly do not expect a branch manager to risk his job by defying corporate policy. Yes, it sucks for the man without thumbs, but there's only so much that one can rationally expect a branch manager to be able to approve. I mean, what else could she have done? Whip out an iris-scanner?

How quickly we forget that most banks just refused to cash any cheques for non-customers before the institution of the thumbprint requirement.

All I can say here is that the branch manager should have called corporate to find out what to do in this particular situation. It would have probably taken probably an hour or so by the time she got connected with the right people and got the right information, but it's the most that can rationally be expected.

[ATCGs]

I've never had a problem with BoA, and always gotten good service from the people at my local branch. That being said... yeah, that is just silly.

[Wapiti]

The excerpt below is taken from title 3 of the ADA. Found here at the Department of Justice webiste. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sec.36.301 Eligibility criteria.

(a) General. A public accommodation shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered.

I believe the use of a thumb print is for security meaures to protect the bank from loss in the event of a bad check is it not? Basically for identification purposes. Now in this case, how would you identify someone without thumb prints who has no arms or hands or fingers. Let me think here, oh I know, look for the guy with no arms. I'm sure he's not hard to find, maybe make a note somewhere in the system, write it on the check even. Last time I was out in public you could count the amount of people with fake arms on, well, I could count the number I saw if I had no arms myself at the moment. The fact that he had no arms, offers pretty much the same protection as a thumb print in this case. I imagine the amount of people in the world with his name and no arms trying to cash bad checks is pretty small. I don't see how requiring the thumb print can be justified legally in this case, I don't see how it can be shown necessary in this case.

[Seriously]

While on the surface it seems like the B of A people should have been more accommodating, we need to consider the realities of the situation here.

1) The thumb-print requirement is a corporate policy that a branch manager does not have any authority to override.
2) The branch manager would have been risking her job by allowing a non-customer to cash a cheque without a thumb-print.
3) Before the institution of the thumbprint requirement, most banks simply refused to cash cheques for non-customers.

While the policy may well be very bad in this particular instance, I certainly do not expect a branch manager to risk his job by defying corporate policy. Yes, it sucks for the man without thumbs, but there's only so much that one can rationally expect a branch manager to be able to approve. I mean, what else could she have done? Whip out an iris-scanner?

How quickly we forget that most banks just refused to cash any cheques for non-customers before the institution of the thumbprint requirement.

All I can say here is that the branch manager should have called corporate to find out what to do in this particular situation. It would have probably taken probably an hour or so by the time she got connected with the right people and got the right information, but it's the most that can rationally be expected.

I would hope, and I would obviously be wrong in this hope, they they would hire a bank manager with enough common sense to realize how much bad publicity could come from not cashing a check for a person with NO ARMS because they couldn't give a thumb print.

He had other valid ID.

[AaronSheffield]

I would hope, and I would obviously be wrong in this hope, they they would hire a bank manager with enough common sense to realize how much bad publicity could come from not cashing a check for a person with NO ARMS because they couldn't give a thumb print.

He had other valid ID.

The bank manager was definitely deficient for failing to contact corporate to ascertain appropriate procedures. I fully grant that. But there is a very real possibility that corporate would have fired the branch manager for failing to get the thumbprint if she had simply gone ahead and allowed the transaction without obtaining approval from corporate. I mean, I'm pretty sure that this isn't a situation that they cover in normal company training.

Was it the wrong thing to do to refuse the cheque without consulting corporate? Absolutely. Huge mistake there.

As far as valid ID, lots of people have ID that appears valid. Obviously ID alone is considered insufficient or there would not be any thumbprint requirement in the first place. The thumbprint is a unique identifier that is not easily forged and it allows the bank to turn that information over to authorities in the event that fraud is suspected. It provides at least some potential to track a person even if they used false ID by comparing the thumbprint to federal and state databases. ID, which is not retained by the bank, does not provide this same functionality.

In terms of accommodation, the only thing I can think of that would be even close to matching the functional benefit of the thumbprint for this man would have been a set of photographs that approximated mug shots. This would likely have also been a publicity issue, however and I'm reasonably sure that corporate would have eventually simply exempted this particular man from the policy in the interest of expediency. Still, this does not change the fact that a branch manager would not have the authority to make such a decision unilaterally in today's business world.

I would love to live in a world where the branch manager would have been able to just cash the cheque without having to consult anyone, but I've seen enough of the inside of large companies to know that it just doesn't work that way.

[Seriously]

Probably why I don't work for large corporations/companies. I couldn't treat people like that even to keep my job.

[Wapiti]

The thumbprint is a unique identifier that is not easily forged....
So is not having any thumbs or arms, pretty darn unique.

In terms of accommodation, the only thing I can think of that would be even close to matching the functional benefit of the thumbprint for this man would have been a set of photographs that approximated mug shots.
Ever seen the cameras when you walk into a Bank of America? They're everywhere for video evidence that is supplied to law enforcement when needed.

[LionsPride]

How quickly we forget that most banks just refused to cash any cheques for non-customers before the institution of the thumbprint requirement.

All I can say here is that the branch manager should have called corporate to find out what to do in this particular situation. It would have probably taken probably an hour or so by the time she got connected with the right people and got the right information, but it's the most that can rationally be expected.

I agree that in this case it's not the bank manager's fault, policy is policy and they have to follow it. What I do disagree with is the policy itself which is one the BoA chose to implement. As you mentioned, they could have continued to deny cashing cheques to people that do not have an account there, a policy that does not discriminate against anyone based on physical characteristics. If they wanted to be more accommodating, but still maintain their perceived security, they should have made a policy that had an alternative identification measure in the event a person could not provide a thumb print (that's could not, not would not).

[Hamburglar]

I've always thought this was a crock of $hit.

Fingerprint, credit card, two forms of ID, and your first born son.

I make a point any time I cash a check as a non-customer to firmly smudge the print. Maybe they could still get a positive ID, but it makes me feel better.

[Corbu]

Makes me proud we gave them TARP money. BofA will never get my business, not because of this, but do to past experiences with estate matters. My recommendation is if you do business in any way shape or form, switch banks. BofA epitomizes bad banking at its best, dime one should have never been given to them they are scum of the earth.

[Grimstad]

As Wapiti pointed out it's a clear violation of the ADA

[loosefanbelt]

The banking industry is predatory.

[AaronSheffield]

The thumbprint is a unique identifier that is not easily forged....

So is not having any thumbs or arms, pretty darn unique.

Something is either unique or not unique. It's rather like being pregnant, it's a binary condition. A fingerprint is unique to an individual person. Missing arms, while rare, is not unique. Still, I grant that it would be a functionally useful descriptor.

In terms of accommodation, the only thing I can think of that would be even close to matching the functional benefit of the thumbprint for this man would have been a set of photographs that approximated mug shots.

Ever seen the cameras when you walk into a Bank of America? They're everywhere for video evidence that is supplied to law enforcement when needed.

Security cameras are low-resolution and their footage cannot be readily compared against federal and state databases in the same way that fingerprints can. Even mug shot style photographs are inferior to fingerprints, but they are the only reasonably effective alternative I can think of in this sort of instance.

I am not supporting B of A's policy here, I'm just pointing out that this isn't as cut and dried as our emotions might lead us to believe. Frankly, if I ran a bank I'd set policies that are like those of my hometown savings and loan; no account, no cheque cashing, period. It's not the most convenient for customers, but given the fact that any other policy is liable to result in a lawsuit from someone somewhere who thinks the rules aren't "fair" it would clearly be the best policy for the bank.

[Hamburglar]

I'm surprised nobody noticed this....

A spokesperson for Bank of America says while the thumb print is a requirement for those who don't have accounts, the bank should have made accommodations She says the company plans to contact Valdez and apologize.

The bank admitted fault in not better accommodating his disability. I bet he's offered a special account with a lump sum already deposited in it.

[Seriously]

I'm surprised nobody noticed this....



The bank admitted fault in not better accommodating his disability. I bet he's offered a special account with a lump sum already deposited in it.

I noticed it. That's why I'm saying it's a shame they didn't have a bank manager in place with some common sense. Who could fail to realize that denying someone without hands the ability to cash a check because they don't have a thumb print is IMO beyond stupid and has the implications for a HUGE lawsuit. It has discrimination written all over it. Hellloooo.

[AaronSheffield]

I'm surprised nobody noticed this....

The bank admitted fault in not better accommodating his disability. I bet he's offered a special account with a lump sum already deposited in it.

I noticed it, but all it really does is support my assertion that the Branch Manager was deficient in failing to consult Corporate. I sincerely doubt that the branch manager training included what to do if a non-customer with no arms comes in and wants to cash a cheque, so all the manager could have been expected to do was contact corporate.

As far as him being offered a "special" account with money in it, that's just ridiculous. There isn't a company on earth that would offer that in this case. He will receive an apology, quite probably written, and some manner of guarantee that he will be permitted to cash cheques in the future without providing a thumbprint. The bank is not going to hand out money in a case in which no actual monetary damages occurred.

[Seriously]

As far as him being offered a "special" account with money in it, that's just ridiculous. There isn't a company on earth that would offer that in this case. He will receive an apology, quite probably written, and some manner of guarantee that he will be permitted to cash cheques in the future without providing a thumbprint. The bank is not going to hand out money in a case in which no actual monetary damages occurred.

I agree in that I don't see them handing over any money at this point. I do wonder though at the potential for a lawsuit. While he wasn't out monetarily he could claim emotional damage. I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if that is feasible but this being America and all who knows...

[curiousgeorge01]

Am I the only one who found that morbidly funny on the first read through?