Just a thought

malc161

As we are all paid into a bank account these days , and most banks sing from the same Hymn sheet - ripping us off whenever they can , surely it is time to sort them out .

We are not without power , 500 years ago employees were being taken to the cleaners , not by banks but by unscrupulous employers , who paid them in tokens or goods of their own manufacture ,this was known as "truck system " basically they monopolised and bullied them .

This ( although we seem to have options as regards which bank we use ? ) is pretty much a similar circumstance .

In those days it was changed by a thing called the truck acts , which have been continually amended to protect the likes of you and me from having our hard earned syphened off by dubious employers .

As the banks seem to hold sway over everyone ( our employers included ) then is'nt it time someone looked at repealling the truck act ( or employment rights act as it is now called ) to include banks and salaries, as in MY opinion , it is more than likely the banks will do a deal with the oft and law lords , which is likely to involve our overdrafts . loans and credit card bills being taken from any refund we are due before settlement , therefore depriving us of any actual cash reimbursement.

I have attached a truck acts summary for thought.


“The old Truck enactments were very numerous and date from about the year 1464. The particular evil intended to be remedied was the truck system, or payment by masters of their men's wages wholly or in part with goods -- a system open to various abuse -- when workmen were forced to take goods at their master's valuation. The statutes were applied first to one branch of manufacture, and then in succession to others, as experience and the progress of manufactures dictated, until they embraced the whole or nearly the whole of the manufactures of England. They established the obligation, and produced, or at least fortified the custom, of uniformly paying the whole wages of artificers in the current coin of the realm. By 1831 they were collected and consolidated in one Act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37). They were, in truth, part of a system of legislation regulating the relation of a master and workman, this part of it being in favour of the workman, who, as an individual, was deemed weaker than his master and therefore liable to oppression: per Byles J. in Archer v James (1859) 2 B. & S. 61, 82. That Act by section 3 provided:

"That the entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any artificer in any of the trades herein-after enumerated, in respect of any labour by him done in any such trade, shall be actually paid to such artificer in the current coin of this realm, and not otherwise;..."

By sections 23 and 24 certain deductions were permitted to be made. Litigation in respect of those sections gave rise to some unsatisfactory decisions. In Chawner v Cummings (1846) 8 Q.B. 311, it was held it was not illegal for employers, following the practice of the hosiery trade, to let out frames to the framework knitters in their employ and to deduct the rent from the earnings. In Archer v. James, 2 B. & S. 61 that decision was challenged in respect of deductions for rent of frame, rent of machine, standing room, winding the yarn, gas and firing. However, the Court of Queen's Bench refused to depart from the decision in Chawner v Cummings, 8 Q.B. 311 and in the Exchequer Chamber the six judges were equally divided, with the result that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was affirmed. This led to the passing of the Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 48) which provided by section 1:

"...the earnings of labour in the hosiery manufacture shall be actually and positively made payable in net, in the current coin of the realm, and not otherwise, without any deduction or stoppage of any description whatever, save and except for bad and disputed workmanship."

Specific provision was made by section 2 that all contracts to stop wages, and all contracts for frame rents and charges, between employer and artificers, shall be illegal, null and void.
In 1887 a further Truck Act was passed, the Truck Amendment Act 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 46), which, inter alia, contained the important provision (section 2) that the expression "artificer" be construed to include every workman as defined in the Employers and Workmen Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90).
In Redgrave v Kelly (1889) 5 T.L.R. 477, the respondent was the proprietor of a confectioner's business employing at a weekly wage a large number of persons, including several young girls. He deducted tuppence from the weekly wage of one girl for spoiling a paste brush and for badly doing her work of wrapping up confectionery. He deducted a similar sum from another girl for spoiling a tray of work and being impudent. An information laid by the inspector of factories alleged that those deductions from the wages were payments otherwise than in coin and thus in breach of section 3 of the Act of 1831. The magistrate held otherwise, the inspector appealed and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. In the very short report of his judgment Mathew J., with whom Grantham J. concurred, said that the mischief against which the Act was directed was not non-payment of wages by reason of deduction of fines, but payment of wages by goods. Shortly, thereafter, another case raised the question of permitted deductions, namely Hewlett v Allen & Sons [1892] 2 Q.B. 662. In that case the plaintiff on leaving the defendant's service sought to recover deductions which had been made from her wages, with her full agreement in writing, of weekly subscriptions for a sick and accident club. She lost her claim because of her acquiescence in such payments, but in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal Bowen L.J. said, at p. 664:

"The clear intention of the Truck Acts was to ensure to workmen the payment of the entire amount of their wages in actual current coin of the realm, unfettered by any promise or obligation that it should be spent in any particular manner, or at any particular shop. The legislature endeavoured to secure that the workman might have in his hand the very actual coin representing his wages, in order that he and his family might freely carry it home, or spend it without impediment in the open market... The Truck Act of 1831...attempted to enforce this object by rendering illegal every payment, or contract for payment, of wages, except in the mode provided by the Act."

He further stated, at p. 666:

"The employer cannot, for the purpose of compliance with the statute, be both payer and payee. To hold otherwise would be to make the statute idle."

Parliament clearly thought it desirable to clarify what deductions from the sum contracted to be paid to the workmen or what payments to the employer by the workmen, the employer was entitled to provide for in his contract. Accordingly the Truck Act 1896 was passed. I set out hereunder the whole of sections 1 and 2 and the material part of section 3 which cover three heads of deductions or payments, which in certain limited circumstances the employer is entitled to provide for in the contract of employment:

"1(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman, for or in respect of any fine, unless -- (a) the terms of the contract are contained in a notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to the workmen and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and (b) the contract specified the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine may be imposed, and the amount of the fine or the particulars from which that amount may be ascertained; and (c) the fine imposed under the contract is in respect of some act or omission which causes or is likely to cause damage or loss to the employer, or interruption or hindrance to his business; and (d) the amount of the fine is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (2) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment, unless -- (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine is imposed and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made. (3) This section shall apply to the case of a shop assistant in like manner as it applies to the case of a workman. "2(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for or in respect of bad or negligent work or injury to the materials or other property of the employer, unless -- (a) the terms of the contract are contained in a notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to the workmen and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and (b) the deduction or payment to be made under the contract does not exceed the actual or estimated damage or loss occasioned to the employer by the act or omission of the workman, or of some person over whom he has control, or for whom he has by the contract agreed to be responsible; and (c) the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (2) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless -- (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made. "3(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for, or in respect of, the use or supply of materials, tools or machines, standing room, light, heat, or for or in respect of any other thing to be done or provided by the employer in relation to the work or labour of the workman unless..."

Before concentrating on the point of construction, it is interesting, as a matter of history, to note Williams v North's Navigation Collieries (1889) Ltd. [1906] A.C. 136. It decided that the Truck Act 1831 did not allow an employer when paying wages to a workman to make any deductions except those expressly sanctioned by the Act. Therefore, he could not deduct money which a court of summary jurisdiction had ordered the workman to pay to the employer in respect of breaches of contract to work. In his speech Lord Loreburn L.C. said, at p. 140:

"it appears to me that an obligation rests upon the employer under the Truck Act 1831 section 3, to pay in coin...all the money payable as wages, and that in ascertaining how much is payable as wages he can subtract nothing except the deductions expressly sanctioned by the Act."

Redgrave v Kelly, 5 T.L.R. 477, was cited in argument, but was not referred to in any of the speeches. As Robert Goff L.J. observed [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1371, 1380, in giving the judgment of the Divisional Court in this appeal:

"The decision in Redgrave v Kelly is difficult to reconcile with the decision in the Williams case; and it is therefore a matter of some speculation whether, if the Williams case had been decided before 1896, Parliament would have thought it necessary to enact section 1, or indeed section 2, of the Act of 1896."

The modern successor of the Truck Acts is found in the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss.13-27. This replaced and updated the Wages Act 1986 which had itself repealed the Truck Acts. A case called Bristow v City Petroleum[1] was the last case to be decided under the old legislation and in it, Lord Ackner in the House of Lords gave a short history of the previous regime:

malc161

malc161 wrote: »

As we are all paid into a bank account these days , and most banks sing from the same Hymn sheet - ripping us off whenever they can , surely it is time to sort them out .

We are not without power , 500 years ago employees were being taken to the cleaners , not by banks but by unscrupulous employers , who paid them in tokens or goods of their own manufacture ,this was known as "truck system " basically they monopolised and bullied them .

This ( although we seem to have options as regards which bank we use ? ) is pretty much a similar circumstance .

In those days it was changed by a thing called the truck acts , which have been continually amended to protect the likes of you and me from having our hard earned syphened off by dubious employers .

has the banks seem to hold sway over everyone ( our employers included ) then is'nt it time someone looked at repealling the truck act ( or employment rights act as it is now called ) to include banks and salaries, as in MY opinion , it is more than likely the banks will do a deal with the oft and law lords , which is likely to involve our overdrafts . loans and credit card bills being taken from any refund we are due before settlement , therefore depriving us of any actual cash reimbursement.

I have attached a truck acts summary for thought.


“The old Truck enactments were very numerous and date from about the year 1464. The particular evil intended to be remedied was the truck system, or payment by masters of their men's wages wholly or in part with goods -- a system open to various abuse -- when workmen were forced to take goods at their master's valuation. The statutes were applied first to one branch of manufacture, and then in succession to others, as experience and the progress of manufactures dictated, until they embraced the whole or nearly the whole of the manufactures of England. They established the obligation, and produced, or at least fortified the custom, of uniformly paying the whole wages of artificers in the current coin of the realm. By 1831 they were collected and consolidated in one Act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37). They were, in truth, part of a system of legislation regulating the relation of a master and workman, this part of it being in favour of the workman, who, as an individual, was deemed weaker than his master and therefore liable to oppression: per Byles J. in Archer v James (1859) 2 B. & S. 61, 82. That Act by section 3 provided:

"That the entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any artificer in any of the trades herein-after enumerated, in respect of any labour by him done in any such trade, shall be actually paid to such artificer in the current coin of this realm, and not otherwise;..."

By sections 23 and 24 certain deductions were permitted to be made. Litigation in respect of those sections gave rise to some unsatisfactory decisions. In Chawner v Cummings (1846) 8 Q.B. 311, it was held it was not illegal for employers, following the practice of the hosiery trade, to let out frames to the framework knitters in their employ and to deduct the rent from the earnings. In Archer v. James, 2 B. & S. 61 that decision was challenged in respect of deductions for rent of frame, rent of machine, standing room, winding the yarn, gas and firing. However, the Court of Queen's Bench refused to depart from the decision in Chawner v Cummings, 8 Q.B. 311 and in the Exchequer Chamber the six judges were equally divided, with the result that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was affirmed. This led to the passing of the Hosiery Manufacture (Wages) Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 48) which provided by section 1:

"...the earnings of labour in the hosiery manufacture shall be actually and positively made payable in net, in the current coin of the realm, and not otherwise, without any deduction or stoppage of any description whatever, save and except for bad and disputed workmanship."

Specific provision was made by section 2 that all contracts to stop wages, and all contracts for frame rents and charges, between employer and artificers, shall be illegal, null and void.
In 1887 a further Truck Act was passed, the Truck Amendment Act 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 46), which, inter alia, contained the important provision (section 2) that the expression "artificer" be construed to include every workman as defined in the Employers and Workmen Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 90).
In Redgrave v Kelly (1889) 5 T.L.R. 477, the respondent was the proprietor of a confectioner's business employing at a weekly wage a large number of persons, including several young girls. He deducted tuppence from the weekly wage of one girl for spoiling a paste brush and for badly doing her work of wrapping up confectionery. He deducted a similar sum from another girl for spoiling a tray of work and being impudent. An information laid by the inspector of factories alleged that those deductions from the wages were payments otherwise than in coin and thus in breach of section 3 of the Act of 1831. The magistrate held otherwise, the inspector appealed and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. In the very short report of his judgment Mathew J., with whom Grantham J. concurred, said that the mischief against which the Act was directed was not non-payment of wages by reason of deduction of fines, but payment of wages by goods. Shortly, thereafter, another case raised the question of permitted deductions, namely Hewlett v Allen & Sons [1892] 2 Q.B. 662. In that case the plaintiff on leaving the defendant's service sought to recover deductions which had been made from her wages, with her full agreement in writing, of weekly subscriptions for a sick and accident club. She lost her claim because of her acquiescence in such payments, but in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal Bowen L.J. said, at p. 664:

"The clear intention of the Truck Acts was to ensure to workmen the payment of the entire amount of their wages in actual current coin of the realm, unfettered by any promise or obligation that it should be spent in any particular manner, or at any particular shop. The legislature endeavoured to secure that the workman might have in his hand the very actual coin representing his wages, in order that he and his family might freely carry it home, or spend it without impediment in the open market... The Truck Act of 1831...attempted to enforce this object by rendering illegal every payment, or contract for payment, of wages, except in the mode provided by the Act."

He further stated, at p. 666:

"The employer cannot, for the purpose of compliance with the statute, be both payer and payee. To hold otherwise would be to make the statute idle."

Parliament clearly thought it desirable to clarify what deductions from the sum contracted to be paid to the workmen or what payments to the employer by the workmen, the employer was entitled to provide for in his contract. Accordingly the Truck Act 1896 was passed. I set out hereunder the whole of sections 1 and 2 and the material part of section 3 which cover three heads of deductions or payments, which in certain limited circumstances the employer is entitled to provide for in the contract of employment:

"1(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman, for or in respect of any fine, unless -- (a) the terms of the contract are contained in a notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to the workmen and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and (b) the contract specified the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine may be imposed, and the amount of the fine or the particulars from which that amount may be ascertained; and (c) the fine imposed under the contract is in respect of some act or omission which causes or is likely to cause damage or loss to the employer, or interruption or hindrance to his business; and (d) the amount of the fine is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (2) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment, unless -- (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the fine is imposed and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made. (3) This section shall apply to the case of a shop assistant in like manner as it applies to the case of a workman. "2(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for or in respect of bad or negligent work or injury to the materials or other property of the employer, unless -- (a) the terms of the contract are contained in a notice kept constantly affixed at such place or places open to the workmen and in such a position that it may be easily seen, read, and copied by any person whom it affects; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and (b) the deduction or payment to be made under the contract does not exceed the actual or estimated damage or loss occasioned to the employer by the act or omission of the workman, or of some person over whom he has control, or for whom he has by the contract agreed to be responsible; and (c) the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (2) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless -- (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made. "3(1) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for, or in respect of, the use or supply of materials, tools or machines, standing room, light, heat, or for or in respect of any other thing to be done or provided by the employer in relation to the work or labour of the workman unless..."

Before concentrating on the point of construction, it is interesting, as a matter of history, to note Williams v North's Navigation Collieries (1889) Ltd. [1906] A.C. 136. It decided that the Truck Act 1831 did not allow an employer when paying wages to a workman to make any deductions except those expressly sanctioned by the Act. Therefore, he could not deduct money which a court of summary jurisdiction had ordered the workman to pay to the employer in respect of breaches of contract to work. In his speech Lord Loreburn L.C. said, at p. 140:

"it appears to me that an obligation rests upon the employer under the Truck Act 1831 section 3, to pay in coin...all the money payable as wages, and that in ascertaining how much is payable as wages he can subtract nothing except the deductions expressly sanctioned by the Act."

Redgrave v Kelly, 5 T.L.R. 477, was cited in argument, but was not referred to in any of the speeches. As Robert Goff L.J. observed [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1371, 1380, in giving the judgment of the Divisional Court in this appeal:

"The decision in Redgrave v Kelly is difficult to reconcile with the decision in the Williams case; and it is therefore a matter of some speculation whether, if the Williams case had been decided before 1896, Parliament would have thought it necessary to enact section 1, or indeed section 2, of the Act of 1896."

The modern successor of the Truck Acts is found in the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss.13-27. This replaced and updated the Wages Act 1986 which had itself repealed the Truck Acts. A case called Bristow v City Petroleum[1] was the last case to be decided under the old legislation and in it, Lord Ackner in the House of Lords gave a short history of the previous regime:

Ok a bit contentious i know , but my point is -

In days gone by , when we were all paid in cash ,we could juggle our money in a way we understood , if we had a large bill we would keep money by one week and add to it the next without fear of someone taking a chunk from it before the bill was paid , we knew how to handle our cash .

In these days of electronic payment when we are all being forced to recieve and make payments this way if we do not , we pay more - try paying virgin or your bt in any other way - our money is tied up before we recieve it on thursday or the 1st of the month , enevitably we recieve a debit sometimes before our money goes in and it incurs a charge, this charge can be extortionate and cause a knock on effect, our wages should be sacred and exempt from these charges.

I am not for one minute blaming the banks for peoples financial mismanagement ,or that people should not be prepared for some charges if they continually mismanage their finances , but what i am suggesting is banks should be legislated against particuarly when they capitolise on and help escalate a persons difficult financial times

withnell

Then surely the answer is not to spend money before you have it - in your example of the BT bill, if the DD is taken out before wages are paid in, then even if you were paid in cash you wouldn't be able to pay the bill off in time

malc161

withnell wrote: »

Then surely the answer is not to spend money before you have it - in your example of the BT bill, if the DD is taken out before wages are paid in, then even if you were paid in cash you wouldn't be able to pay the bill off in time

But you would not be penalised to the tune of £38 each time it is represented , you would simply pay it late , is'nt that how it worked for years ,and if i remember correctly bt were making TOO much money - so it was'nt such a bad system .
Incidently when you set up a d/d , it is for a certain date in the month say fri the 1st- some pay days do not correspond with that date ie friday the 1st is not always friday the 1st sometimes its fri 31st or 2nd , either way it can create a late payment charge- if d/d are going out on 1st and your payed on the 2nd by quirk of calender- subtle difference and the banks know it.

withnell

Then if its going to be a problem, then don't pay by Direct Debit

It costs less to pay by DD because the businesses have lower costs over processing manual payments - but you aren't required to use DD

malc161

withnell wrote: »

Then if its going to be a problem, then don't pay by Direct Debit

It costs less to pay by DD because the businesses have lower costs over processing manual payments - but you aren't required to use DD[/QUOTE

Yes i agree but , company's such as virgin broadband offer discounts to people who pay by D/D and charge extra if you pay any other way , my point is - yes we do have some options but they can be more expensive.

Hazzanet

malc161 wrote: »

Incidently when you set up a d/d , it is for a certain date in the month say fri the 1st- some pay days do not correspond with that date ie friday the 1st is not always friday the 1st sometimes its fri 31st or 2nd , either way it can create a late payment charge- if d/d are going out on 1st and your payed on the 2nd by quirk of calender- subtle difference and the banks know it.

Which is why I never select a date near to my pay day for DDs. Generally, I am paid on the 21st of the month, however if the 21st is a Saturday, it will be paid on the 20th, if it's a Sunday, it will be paid on the 22nd. I've always selected the 5th for payments out of my account because I know that the money will have arrived, cleared etc. It also means that if I move companies to one where it's the last friday of the month etc, the funds too will have cleared the account by the 5th.

If the day a DD goes out causes a problem, you can (usually) ask for it to be moved to a more convenient day.

noh

Hazzanet wrote: »

.........................
If the day a DD goes out causes a problem, you can (usually) ask for it to be moved to a more convenient day.

And/or keep a sufficient amount in you account to cover the bills.

Hazzanet

Indeed......

malc161

noh wrote: »

And/or keep a sufficient amount in you account to cover the bills.

With all due respect ,This is all schoolboy stuff and elementary , the original thread was prompting people to think outside the box and reply accordingly - i did wonder when it would be bogged down in the quagmire of staid and simple accounting - regardless of simply run home ecconomics, some people do get into financial difficultys and are then furthered into a downward financial spiral by the very people who are supposed to safeguard their finances , namely - the bank , surely a properly legislated act would be the direction to steer our politicians, and not be bamboozled by googlies such as the replys posted.

withnell

malc161 wrote: »

withnell wrote: »

Then if its going to be a problem, then don't pay by Direct Debit

It costs less to pay by DD because the businesses have lower costs over processing manual payments - but you aren't required to use DD

Yes i agree but , company's such as virgin broadband offer discounts to people who pay by D/D and charge extra if you pay any other way , my point is - yes we do have some options but they can be more expensive.

And as I explained, it is because of lower processing costs that the DD is cheaper.