On 10/13/09 17:48, andrel wrote:
> On 13-10-2009 5:26, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/12/09 14:07, andrel wrote:
>>>> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this
>>>> country. :-) People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?
>>
>> When the Bush administration was caught monitoring phone conversations
>> en masse (and likely illegally), their defense was along the lines of
>> "If you're not calling terrorists, why are you worried about it?"
>
> Yes, a common reply.
>
> Just for argument sake let me try to rephrase this: why would you want
> de deny a company of being able to handle all salary payments uniformly
> and electronically? Why would you want to force them to have an armoured
> truck delivering huge stacks of cash on pay day?

	Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some employers require direct 
deposit in banks. Although perhaps they'll make exceptions for 
exceptional employees who can give a good reason not to do that (maybe 
the law requires them to handle them - not sure).

	Before I used direct deposit, checks were the standard way. Cash 
payments were rare. People who didn't have bank accounts could go banks 
and get them cashed - although today that tends to raise eyebrows in itself!

	I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and 
perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same, really. 
Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your salary from the 
bank.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse

Post a reply to this message