Apr 22 2007

Banks still cashing in on ATM fees

Canada’s New Democratic Party continues to fight the good fight against corporate greed in the form of banking fees.

Conservatives may not like it, but hopefully the other political parties will see the light.

Banks saved millions by getting rid of many bank teller positions as ATM machines made those jobs redundant. Next, they started charging clients ATM fees, allegedly to pay for installation and maintenance of those same bank machines… which should have been paid for from the savings in staff payroll.

Banks are trying to have it both ways. Up until now, it’s worked, with billion-dollar profits for the leading financial institutions. It’s just gouging and it should stop.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “Banks still cashing in on ATM fees”

  1. on 22 Apr 2007 at 1:31 am

    Government has absolutely no business meddling in what banks charge in open, transparent trasactions like ATM fees, and to say otherwise is basically communism. If consumers don’t want to pay the fee they can damn well walk to their nearest home branch. The idea of government intervening to protect people from voluntarily choosing to spend $1.50 is just socialist micromanagement gone mad. It’s incredible that anyone outside the NDP supports this…

  2. on 22 Apr 2007 at 1:54 am

    I still fail to see what all the fuss is about ATM fees. No one is forcibly being led to an ATM and made to incur a fee by withdrawing cash….it’s an option chosen by the individual. As far as that goes, my bank does not charge me a fee for using their ATM. I do accept that a financial institution that I do not deal with can charge me a fee for using their machine.

  3. on 22 Apr 2007 at 1:56 am

    Banks may charge ATM fees, but people CHOOSE to pay them. If you want to avoid ATM fees, all you need to do is use the ATMs from your own bank. It’s that simple.

    If you’re paying ATM fees, it’s because you’re getting the added convenience (which you never would have had with the old teller system you seem to like so much) for using the ATM from a bank other than your own.

    So what if banks saved millions by getting rid of some teller positions? How is that any different from a manufacturer installing automated equipment to reduce the number of workers needed. Improvements in technology are what free up human resources in the economy for other jobs–that’s economic progress.

    And what’s wrong with banks making billions of dollars? Making money is what businesses do. Maybe you should buy some bank stock and you too can participate in those profits.

  4. on 22 Apr 2007 at 2:55 am

    Refreshing that a conservative sees the banks for the greedy theives that they are.
    (real conservative)

  5. on 22 Apr 2007 at 3:43 am

    My next door neighbour was just laid off, he fixed ATM machines. Now, because they don’t fix them on site, only replace them, they are replacing technicians with low paid employees.

    I propose one day of protest, noone uses their bank cards or credit cards for purchases, they go into the banks to get the cash, if you want to see the banking system crash, that would do it. The whole system would come to a stand still, and as long as people understand that their money is safe, it would send a strong message to the banks.

  6. on 22 Apr 2007 at 12:33 pm

    See the only ATM fee that really sucks and makes no sense is the one that comes if you have used your bank card too many times in a month, otherwise the one for useing an opposing banks machine makes perfect sense, that other bank should be allowed to charge someone who isn’t their customer to use “their” machine.

  7. on 22 Apr 2007 at 5:24 pm

    “Government has absolutely no business meddling in what banks charge in open, transparent trasactions like ATM fees, and to say otherwise is basically communism.”

    Odd. I didn’t realize that not wanting to get gouged made me an adherent of Vladimir Lenin. If I’m also annoyed at the $45 initial set-up fee that phone companies charge to give you service (which literally involves thirty seconds of work on their part), does that mean I want to overthrow the West?

  8. on 22 Apr 2007 at 5:57 pm

    The REAL answer is complete deregulation of the banking industry. With true competition you’d see ATM fees disapear. BTW most banks don’t even charge ATM fees if you use their machines. It’s usually only when you use another bank’s machine that you get charged.

  9. on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:57 am

    JN: you’re an adherent of Lenin because you want the government to fix your (ridiculously trivial) problem.

    More to the point, I think I paid an ATM fee maybe once in the last year, when I wanted the cash sufficiently to pay the buck or two.

    My credit union doesn’t charge a fee for normal ATM transactions, and an exchange agreement with other credit unions means I don’t pay at any “Exchange”-participating ATM (which is basically all local credit unions and HSBC).

    As for the set-up fee, why do you still have a land line? Is it for your facsimile machine, or your dial-up connection? 😛

    And note that due to their monopoly position, terrestrial telephone providers are quite heavily regulated as to what fees (and how much) they must charge.

    Now, when you start the campaign to have passport validity extended to 10 years, then I’ll stand beside you filling the Molotovs with gasoline.

  10. on 27 Apr 2007 at 6:28 am

    You’re on! Let’s get this (Communist) party started! You bring the cocktails, I’ll bring Molotov (he’s a good guy, really!).

    By the way, am I that un-modern, having a land line? Oh, dear. I’m getting so oooooooooold…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply