Submitted via IRC for SoyCow2718
NY Payroll Company Vanishes With $35 Million
This communique came after employees at companies that depend on MyPayrollHR to receive direct deposits of their bi-weekly payroll payments discovered their bank accounts were instead debited for the amounts they would normally expect to accrue in a given pay period.
To make matters worse, many of those employees found their accounts had been dinged for two payroll periods — a month’s worth of wages —leaving their bank accounts dangerously in the red.
The remainder of this post is a deep-dive into what we know so far about what transpired, and how such an occurrence might be prevented in the future for other payroll processing firms.
Related Stories
The New York Times is reporting on the background and pending charges against the owner of MyPayrollHR, a payroll processing firm who absconded with $26 million in funds earmarked for direct deposit to ~250,000 employees of ~4,000 companies.
From the article:
Nicole Ingram was at the supermarket when she got a confusing text. Her payroll check for working as a nursing assistant in New Jersey, which had been deposited into her account, was being withdrawn.
On that morning in September, thousands of workers across the country received a similar notification. In all, tens of millions of dollars in direct deposit payments suddenly disappeared.
The paychecks were supposed to have been electronically routed through an upstate New York payroll management company, MyPayrollHR.
Ordinarily, MyPayrollHR would transfer the funds to a corporate middleman, Cachet Financial Services, which would then distribute the direct deposits to employees nationwide.
But days before, according to federal authorities, Michael Mann, the president of MyPayrollHR, redirected those payroll funds — $26 million in total, according to a separate lawsuit — into his own personal accounts.
[...] When Cachet realized it had allocated funds that didn't exist, the company reversed the transactions, taking back money from thousands of workers. One worker in Tennessee had an account overdraft by nearly $1 million.
The shocking development helped uncover a gigantic fraud operation and showed the lack of oversight in the payroll industry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @11:26AM (4 children)
This makes sense in the context of non-standard algebra. Eg, the probability of you getting your paycheck was 1.3 and the probability of the company keeping it was -0.3, so p = 1, while p + p = 3.
If you can't handle modern finance that is your problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:38PM
Causation and correlation are codependant variables with a negative inverse co-relation.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday September 13 2019, @12:38PM (2 children)
Yes, 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:49PM (1 child)
No, this is much bigger. Modern finance is so complex that we need probabilities outside the standard 0-1 range and correlations outside the standard -1 to 1 range to understand it:
Journal of Mathematical Finance, 2016, 6, 178-188 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmf.2016.61017 [doi.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @06:52PM
Fool. You forgot to carry the "1".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday September 13 2019, @11:31AM (30 children)
The question is: Why were they even able to withdraw money from the employees' bank accounts. It was not part of their contract, and therefore they should not have been given the permission. And clearly the bank should not have allowed them to withdraw money without explicit permission by the account holder.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:06PM (20 children)
The money in the bank isn't yours. Neither is any stock you think you own. All the no-coiners are going to find this out when they start doing bail-ins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_Corporation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:18PM (1 child)
The only way someone could think this is offtopic is if they fundamentally misunderstand how the world works.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday September 13 2019, @10:53PM
My take is the parent posted someone's sensitive info and the moderation was a puerile attempt to sweep it under the rug, quickly, before too many people see it.
However, to do so invites the Streissand Effect.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Friday September 13 2019, @01:05PM (6 children)
...nor is that stack of banknotes and coins under your bed (the government can decree them worthless at the stroke of a pen - hyperinflation can do the same without the government lifting a finger) and the local militia will be around to place any gold bullion, fresh water, gasoline and canned food you might have stashed in safe keeping (be sure to get a receipt). Of course, if you're from the USA you can assert your Right to Bear Arms- in which case they'll come back with a fucking tank and take your guns too (never ask the government "you and who's army?" because they've got a really good answer to that...) Even if the economy hasn't collapsed, the debt collectors can still come round and collect that astronomical bill that The Man thinks you owe.
Plus, Walmart never carry enough change to let you break a Krugerrand.... although if the economy has just totally collapsed, just buy a second bottle of water and let them keep the change.
There's a fairly narrow range of eventualities that involve just one consumer-facing bank collapsing without the whole economy going down the toilet, hyper-inflation, seas turning to blood etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @01:15PM (1 child)
We are reading a story about the bank taking away the money people thought was theirs. It has happened to me before too. If you want an example for what it will look like, look at greece/cyprus bail-ins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Cypriot_financial_crisis [wikipedia.org]
And look at what the POTUS is saying:
Thats right, he wants all the pension funds, etc required to hold people's retirement money in bonds to start paying the government for the right to do so. Just like is already happening in Europe. Your money is already dwindelling away while you worry about EMP attacks or whatever.
The US government didn't decree the value of gold/silver/btc, and doesn't have the power to decree it worthless either.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday September 14 2019, @01:03PM
You missed a very important bit of that tweet: "... in depreciating the Euro " - the dollar, pound, euro etc. are all fiat currencies that - whether they're in the bank or in cash - aren't worth one bean more than the government decrees (either, in extremis, directly or simply by "printing" lots of new money and forcing up inflation). [wikipedia.org]
No, but in a crisis they can decree that any gold/silver/property that you have belongs to them and make it very difficult for you to spend it - at best, look forward to selling/bartering it on the black market at a fraction of its theoretical value. Meanwhile, doesn't Bitcoin disappear in a puff of logic the millisecond someone briefly attains more than 50% of the mining capacity?
Look, if you want to keep a few scraps of gold and a wad of bills under the floorboards, that's fine, sensible even, and may pay off in some circumstances - but if you take it to the point of eschewing bank accounts or electronic transactions (which is where this thread started) then there's little point unless you're planning to go full "survivalist"... in which case you should stop worrying about the government and start worrying about the other survivalists who may have more guns and less scruples about shooting people than you do.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @05:15PM (3 children)
the us military can't defeat the taliban. (no offense to the military, but they have constraints, etc) i don't think they can defeat 140 million americans armed to the teeth. also, the whole military won't fight their own people. your scenario only works when the shit hasn't hit the fan and it's just one group they are targeting. then they can lie about the subjects through the media and kill them.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:14AM (2 children)
Why do you think they're working on AI weapons? That's going to be the elites' endgame: deadly weapons that have no pesky human elements like a conscience or unwillingness to kill other humans.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14 2019, @02:03AM
Aren't we the experts in technology? Perhaps, we can direct the bots where they should.
Another and perhaps an easier approach is to make them kill each other. Election interference, email leaks, leaks who leaked them and watch them fight. It is even exiting and enjoyable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:27PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday September 13 2019, @01:18PM (10 children)
The money in the bank is yours so long as the laws are still functioning. And if the laws aren't functioning, then your Bitcoins are far less valuable than my food, water, guns, ammo, good relationships with my neighbors, heating fuel, and (in a longer term scenario) arable land. I'm not trading things essential for my survival for any number of Bitcoins, because I know full well that being dead with a bunch of Bitcoins doesn't make me any less dead.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @01:27PM (7 children)
This is the second response that ignores the fact you are commenting on a story that proves you are wrong. Stop with the canned responses and look at reality.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 13 2019, @01:46PM (6 children)
This story doesn't prove I'm wrong: The legal entity and person that stole the money in this case are on the hook for repaying it, and in the meantime the banks are on the hook for allowing the reversal of deposits that didn't happen.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @02:03PM (5 children)
"On the hook" meaning if the people who got screwed can pay the lawyers more they will get some of their money back... eventually.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 13 2019, @05:19PM (4 children)
Whereas there have been multiple instances of people's Bitcoin being stolen by the management of the exchange they stuffed it in, and now it's just plain gone, lawyers or no lawyers. I'll take the option of lawyers and civil courts, as well as regulators like the OCC and FDIC, over everyone attempting to stuff Bitcoins in their virtual mattress (and subject to theft by anyone with access to that hard drive), or pseudo-banks that follow the rules of 1920's S&Ls if they follow any rules at all, thank you.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @05:31PM (3 children)
You obviously do not understand bitcoin. You can store it like a bearer bond if you want, or memorize a seed and store it mentally. If you give it to someone else to keep for you then that is between you and them.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday September 13 2019, @10:17PM (2 children)
And that is different than cash? The issue here is that people gave other people money to move around and it appears to have been stolen somewhere in the moving around process. At least here there is some hope of getting the money back, unlike bitcoin exchanges. Secondly, a person can use their cash, or real coins, even when the power goes out and the internet goes black.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @10:53PM (1 child)
The government can inflate away the value of your cash to zero.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday September 14 2019, @02:08AM
Just remember the definition: "money is a commodity used for exchange". Commodity. Something evenly useful for everybody in regular life. Everything else around is rust and stardust.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 13 2019, @07:07PM
To be fair, apparently the laws aren't functioning. Just ask the people who saw a month's pay yanked back as if it was never theirs.
Of course, you're correct that Bitcoins have no intrinsic value whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @10:30PM
Good call. The smart thing to do is horde bottle caps.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:27PM (1 child)
Direct deposit is basically check processing without the check. It's possible for an originating bank to reverse a deposit that they've made, just like it's possible for a check to bounce and the funds to be removed from the depositor's account. In this case they sent a malformed reversal request that by rule wasn't supposed to be accepted, but knowing that some banks might accept it anyway. And they did, allowing the payroll company to abscond with the money while also laying some of the blame on the receiving bank. Clever bit of fraud, that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @12:29PM
And there is no time limit on this.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday September 13 2019, @08:18PM (4 children)
That is how our financial system works. Any company with access to your bank account and routing number can empty out your account. The banks will be able to reverse all the charges, no employee will have to take the hit for this; but they will make it as bit of a hassle for the victims as possible, because that is what banks do.
Any individual with those two pieces of information can print a check with a name of a fake id and write paper checks against our account. Don't write a paper check against an account unless you are willing to go through the annoyance of that account being emptied out.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 13 2019, @09:35PM (3 children)
So the problem is that the US are still stuck deeply in the past? Here in Europe, nobody would even consider writing a check these days (actually, I'm not even sure if you still can).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday September 13 2019, @10:23PM
Maybe. When I want cash I go to my bank, ask for a counter check, write in my name, account number, amount, and make it out to cash. Then they give me cash and only my bank has the check -- anyone at the bank is supremely capable of messing with any account they want so I don't see that as excessively risky. I haven't had a debit card in maybe 20 years now. I get that there are protections of some sort when you use one, but the problem starts with your account getting being debited and you trying to get that fixed. Just seemed like an unnecessary risk to me. For card based transactions I use a credit card -- that way if someone uses it illegally, the problem starts at the bank and while a hassle, at least I still have all my cash in the meantime.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:59AM
All it takes is a short text message known as SWIFT with an easily remembered code 101.
P.S. If one wants to make it more efficient, 102 transfers multiple accounts.
P.P.S. No, it is not encrypted.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Saturday September 14 2019, @03:42PM
This is for certain. And the financial stuff is only the tip of the iceberg.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @11:54PM
Because people make mistakes. If someone from the payroll company transfers $10k by accident instead of your $5k paycheck, they can move the erroneous amount out immediately without causing a fuss.
It's always a part of their contract.
The bank would always have that explicit permission from the account holder because the bank wants to cover their ass as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14 2019, @02:14AM
1) MPHR used a faked authorization to transfer payroll funds from the employers to an account they controlled instead of the authorized escrow company's account.
2) They then payed the employees from this account.
3) They then issued chargebacks against the employees multiple times. In once case they charged back $1,000,000 against a single paystub.
4) They then emptied their fake escrow account and walked.
1 made the scam possible in the first place. 3 meant they were able to steal far more than what the employers were taken for. Both indicate major problems in the underlying banking system.
(Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Friday September 13 2019, @11:32AM (8 children)
how did Mr Mann, CEO of MyPayrollHR, also CEO and owner of its holding company, ValueWise, manage to get the $35 million out of Pioneer Savings Bank?
...and why was anyone prepared to use the Pioneer Savings Bank instead of the regular, Cachet controlled, holding account?
If it was changed in the payment trigger file with no external validation, then this is quite brilliant, and elegant fraud... and every payment file should no require a separate 'destination' file sent separately to verify against.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Friday September 13 2019, @12:34PM (7 children)
It's all done electronically, and I doubt anyone watches any more than a big-box store catches most retail theft.
But also, how many people read a TOS? Or any contract, or addendum, or rider, or "oh by the way, you have to keep your end of this contract, but we expressly reserve the right to change it at any time without your knowledge or consent"?
The TOS agreement probably gave MyPayrollHR the permission and power to do the transactions. If there even was a TOS.
Too many people blindly (foolishly) give their bank account info. to an employer without even getting any information about the terms. I had a couple of jobs where they would only pay through direct-deposit, as I'm sure is quite common now, and I was given no information about what they could do, or who they would pass the bank account info to.
I opened a new account just for the purpose, and transferred the pay funds out of that account, and made absolutely sure the bank would not back direct-deposit account. IE., if someone tries to debit the account for more than the amount in there, the bank simply refuses the transfer. I don't write paper checks on that account, nor have I ever ordered any paper checks for that account. So far, so good.
(Score: 2) by Fishscene on Friday September 13 2019, @02:04PM (6 children)
That's a smart move. Maybe I should do the same. Basically, just set up a proxy account who's sole function is to receive money and dump it elsewhere. If there's anything withdrawn out of it, it's automatically fraud.
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday September 13 2019, @03:00PM (4 children)
Generally yes, do it. Even better is to make sure the bank does not cover or insure overdrafts, or make sure you can remove that protection. And don't keep money in another account in the same bank. I found out once that my bank did automatic overdraft covering and covered something they should not have, taking money from another account with a fat fee. I was not aware of that mechanism being in place. It may be that you can't stop that action, so just only have one account in the proxy bank.
IANAL, but we laypeople use terminology that has real meaning in certain contexts, like medical, psychological, engineering, IT, etc. Case in point: "fraud" is a common word we all use, but to prove legal fraud is quite difficult, and most people who commit fraud would have a CYA in place, and easily chalk it off to "oops, human error", or "oops, computer error".
Another proxy I use: I don't have a credit card (too many reasons to list) but I do have a major debit card I use to buy online. It's a little annoying, but I prefer lower risk. Credit cards have much better protections, but I don't have that. Anyway, point is: again, proxy account with no paper checks and no overdraft protection. If the funds are not there, the transaction is refused, no fees or penalties (so far...)
My bank does protect my debit account- I once tried to buy something on ebay and it would not complete. Tried over and over, called paypal, ebay, bank, over and over, got upset, nobody would tell me anything. Turns out some secretive 3rd party security company scans all transactions and blocked it because the seller was a fraud. Yay! Except it was a major pain to get someone at the bank (VP) to tell me all of this and tell me who to call to fix it. Frustrating, but nice to know it's there and works when needed. :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @03:38PM (3 children)
That's nuts.
The way the law works here, is that if someone charges your credit card without your authorization they have defrauded the bank, not you. You check your statement, walk into the bank, slap it on the counter and say "this transaction was not authorized". They make you sign a stat dec and immediately credit your account. The bank then rips the money back from whichever merchant account accepted the transaction (along with some hefty fees, I suspect). The merchant can go after the crook or not as they please, nobody else cares.
If someone charges your debit card without authorization the bank will say "meh, sucks to be you. Here's the account the money went to, good luck chasing it."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Friday September 13 2019, @06:27PM (1 child)
Yea, that's the way it's supposed to work.
I had a fraudulent charge from NewEgg once. I did have an account there, but did not order those items. They were shipped to another state. Also, the charge was not on my NewEgg account, but it WAS using a credit card that NewEgg had on file with my account. So the first issue is that NewEgg should NOT have allowed a charge on a separate account for the same card. Seems like a simple fraud check to implement.
Anyway, reported to the bank, and got it credited. Then, a week later, they took it back out. It seems NewEgg responded to the fraud report by claiming it was a legitimate charge. Different shipping address, card used on an account with a different name on the card, everything, but still claimed it was legit. The bank (or someone) apparently bought that (bogus) explanation so reversed the fraud reversal.
I had to file an appeal at the bank. I documented everything. The name was different, the shipping address was one I never used. The address for the card was mine, but I had moved from that address 2 years prior and the bank had my address current, etc. Lots of paperwork, submitted to the bank.
Nothing happened. I followed up, the bank followed up with where it went, I contacted NewEgg, who refused to take any responsibility for it. The bank kept getting the run-around about the appeal. This went on for several months (WAY past the 60-day maximum for responding to the appeal.
Here's what finally got action: We posted about it on Twitter, calling out MasterCard as the entity. Backed it up with a blog post with redacted documents, but enough to tell the story. The day after the Twitter post someone from MasterCard contacted us by DM, then by phone. Still took a couple of more days, but they finally got it cleared up, and the money was back in our account.
If it wasn't for our ability to expose MasterCard for malfeasance in public that way, I doubt we would have ever gotten our money back. It wasn't enough money to be worth hiring a lawyer to handle.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Friday September 13 2019, @08:25PM
I got the same runaround from a bank for weeks until posting about it on social media. Problem fixed and money returned that day after a call from a bank manager an hour later.
Apparently name and shame is the only way to get corporations to give any shits.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday September 14 2019, @03:41AM
I don't understand your reply to my comment. You said "that's nuts"- do you mean you don't agree with what I wrote? Because I wrote the exact same thing. If you don't understand what I wrote, then you're the same AC who keeps misunderstanding me.
I said I use a debit card, and I don't have the same protection as a credit card. Right?
Which is why I keep very little in the debit card-attached account, so that if it gets stolen, it's not much money- not a big loss.
Could you explain how my statement differs?
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday September 14 2019, @02:17AM
That's exactly how I receive my paycheck. Actually, I have it deposited on two different accounts in different banks and then I automatically move the funds where I usually have my money. All of the accounts have alerts on anything above $1.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday September 13 2019, @01:52PM (9 children)
they can actually withhold your paycheck completely and you have to beg for it back at a state agency, and they are under no legal compulsion to give it to you unless you challenge the law at the supreme court.
That is close enough to slavery to me that I dont see the distinction. It is legal not to pay you for your work, after you agreed to do so. I wouldnt be surprised if those alec nutjobs had quietly pushed through laws like that in other places. Its legitimate to question if there is even a right to be paid in their city because the united states is such a nighmare country. It is little wonder there are problems with people losing their minds and getting aggressive at random.
Besides that, what possible advantage can there be to having your payroll company be able to withdraw money from your account? That is literally insane, I would never give that right to anyone, ever, in any circumstance, for this very reason.
literally
thesesystemsarefailing.net (and it isnt an accident)
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Friday September 13 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)
"Besides that, what possible advantage can there be to having your payroll company be able to withdraw money from your account? That is literally insane, I would never give that right to anyone, ever, in any circumstance, for this very reason."
None at all and I really fail to see how they got the permission to withdraw the money to start with. Here in Canada for that to happen you have to give permission to have money withdrawn from your account and then you must fill in the maximum amount that is permissible for that transaction on that form you fill out. That must be signed by you in person in front of an officer of the bank who witnesses it with their signature, no electronic submissions allowed, except by fax which is legally binding for other matters not this though.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday September 14 2019, @03:45AM (2 children)
Do you guys have room for one more?
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Sunday September 15 2019, @05:15PM (1 child)
"Do you guys have room for one more?"
Sure do come on by, though by the time you start paying the taxes you may regret it...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 16 2019, @12:08AM
I'll live mostly on a barter system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @11:59PM (4 children)
Or sue in court. That sort of begging has the potential to be a lot more expensive for them than begging at a state agency.
The obvious difference is that you can stop agreeing and then stop working. They can't force you to keep working for free.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday September 14 2019, @06:37AM (3 children)
From experience let me tell you, the one thing you cannot do is hire a lawyer. Emails not returned. No one wants this case.
Yes, you can be homeless and eat at shelters, be chased by the police and all of the lovely advantages to not having an address.
When there is no frontier, there is no place you can go and just work for yourself, or work on demand.
There are many people who have put up with the withholding of paychecks, it's practically the norm in china, because they have no choice and because the employer is abusing their leverage in the situation with impunity. Basically being a bully with the full backing of the state.
So no I don't think it is that obvious of a difference. I see a definite comparison to be made as I really have to think hard about whether I would rather be an escaped slave in 1840 or a homeless person in seattle in 2019.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:00PM (2 children)
Sorry, not feeling it here, particular since you then follow up this bald statement with the homelessness narrative. It's too bad you were homeless for a while. If you had a real case, rather than merely say you had a real case, you'd have found someone.
So no talking with a lawyer in person?
There, they have real slaves too. That's what happens when you don't have developed world freedom.
Alternately, you can save money. This sort of false dichotomy illustrates how saving some "fuck you" money can make the difference. Rather than being homeless, here's the new scenario I came up with:
1) Employer stops issuing checks that don't bounce. After about a week of runarounds, it's clear they're better at coming up with excuses than money. Give notice that you're leaving because of that. Now or in some period like two weeks is up to you.
2) Estimate how much you are owed in wages. If it's enough to bother with (after the lawyer's fees), then contact said lawyers. Actually see them, if they won't return emails allegedly.
3) Find a new job while living on that savings cushion you have. Six months should be enough time to find a new job.
4) If you're not going the lawyer route, then sure, put in that beg at the appropriate state agency - reduce expectations appropriately. Else it's time for lawyers to work their magic. If you picked a competent one, you should see the money soon. Your wheel just got very squeaky.
And there you go. You're out of the slave job and you might even see most of the money you're owed.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday September 14 2019, @08:22PM (1 child)
That is just not how it works.
It really, really sounds to me like you haven't been there.
None of it works like you say, this 'savings cushion' never materializes.
You will be homeless before any lawyer money pays out and during that time you cannot count on anything.
Saying you had a conflict with a previous employer hurts your chances of getting another job, and your pissed and you have like 0 dollars. You aren't going to be driving all over the city talking with lawyers.
I have tried to contact lawyers multiple times for various things, getting an appointment is very difficult if no one knows you. They screen and every law office has a very special range of things they will do, most of which is not helping poor people.
You really, really shouldn't talk to people who have had these problems like you know what you are talking about, you will push someone to kill themselves thinking it is just them and not the system.
When it is definitely the system. You should give a large donation to a homeless shelter to offset how much your comment insulted me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 15 2019, @03:24AM
You're not the only person on the internet that's experienced employers failing to pay. I read their stories too. The ones with the best outcomes cut their losses and often involve a lawyer of their own.
Materialized just fine for me. You have to save money first in order for a savings cushion to materialize.
The problem here is that it probably is them - not the system. I get there's mental illness, bad luck, etc. I also get that saving enough money to be able to live off of it for half a year while you try to improve your life, is just not that hard.
Blaming the system for your own faults is a lethal, often addictive sort of escapism. Suicide might well be a natural step somewhere down the road, but it's not going to happen because someone said harsh, but sincere words that needed to be said. My view is that even if I chose to hold back my words, the reality of the situation is going to do more to harm those people. They'll know deep down that certain, not very hard things they could be doing that would counter the effects of the "system" or whatever external force they happen to think is to blame.
That gets me all the time even though I've come to terms with the fact that I'm just not going to be the ambitious go-getter (or many other fancy roles) I once dreamed I could be when I was a kid. I've mostly figured out my limitations and work with them rather than blaming external forces for the things holding me back.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday September 13 2019, @01:56PM (6 children)
Any article like this that mentions the corporation and not the names of the people on the board, owners and investors, is helping them get away with it this time and next time.
A legal fiction did not do this, people did. And if we want to have trust, we also have to have a record of who these scumbags are so we know not to trust them. You might say this proves it wasnt the end of trust, this was a misplacement of trust and that other thing I was talking about, a slimy power abusing lateral power grab.
Sorry about 2x. But this shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @05:19PM
yes, cowardly media whores never name names.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @06:20PM
I used to work at one of the big 4 banks doing due diligience about 15 years ago, even if the name of ownwr is not in the article we would have found this and flagged it even back then if they ever tried to do any business with our bank. Though that is not the real issue, real issue is I have found quite a lot of fraud and flagged it, but the bankers opened the accounts anyway. Tgis was especially the case with vulture funda, where a lot of shit was not technically illegal: buy company, skimp on enviornmental cleanup, sell assets, declare bankruptcy, the state or feds have to step in and clean it up while you are long gone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)
Entirely agreed.
On the other hand, there are issues of mistaken identity, vigilante justice, and due process. If somebody were to say "Jack E. Smith is the culprit," they would be opening themselves up for a slander lawsuit, if not encouraging mob rule.
I'm not sure where to draw the line.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday September 14 2019, @06:25AM
You know, this made me rethink my comment lol.
That is another aspect of the lateral power grabs being abused by the system, there is this window before formal charges are filed where they can get away or pretend they are innocent. And then if the court system fails.
I am not sure any other type of system would deal with this any better. If people dont follow news stories and the reputation system gets flooded with false identities and dual passports, the bad guys are really going to win.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 14 2019, @12:22PM (1 child)
What makes you think a company like that has boards, owners, and investors? Even the CEO, "Michael T. Mann" may have been a name made up on the spot too. The next time someone calls, it might be the other CEO, John Q. Doe who answers.
A theft that brazen is going to have an escape plan. And part of that plan is probably spreading a vast number of fake names and addresses around. Even worse, these guys probably have done this before, just not on this level.
I recommend this Popehat blogging series [popehat.com] which talks about eventually catching one such person over a seven year period. It's an interesting case study in the tactics of scamming and the behavior that one sees in scammers. As a bonus, the scammers did some actual payroll scamming too so it's scamming in this very area.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 14 2019, @01:35PM
I didn't think the pope wore a hat. He wears a silly mitre, or some such, doesn't he? Looks about as silly as those three-cornered hats from the revolutionary war era, right?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @02:56PM
Blowhard lazy unskilled big talker (but no action in provable work done by "it") barbara hudson fails on C and C++ inferiority to P a s c a l on string processing security + speed advantage https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=33430&page=1&cid=889635#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] also caught in lies while quoted stalking others by unidentifiable anonymous posts at the end of that post.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 13 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)
This never seems to work the other way. For example, how likely is it that the people who are now screwed can call up the bank and say their payments to the cable company were in error, please yank those back and have any action taken?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday September 13 2019, @08:29PM
Bank error is never in your favor. You will never collect $200 from it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13 2019, @08:52PM
Bob: "I work in The Cloud."
Mike: "Who pays you?"
Bob: "The cloud."
Mike: "What if the pay-cloud suddenly disappears?"
Bob: "Luddite! you worry too much."
Mike: "Hey look, your payroll company ran off!"
Bob: "Holy shit, I'll lose my house! Where will I live?"
Mike: "In the cloud, of course."
Bob: "Fog you!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday September 14 2019, @05:59AM
The more I think about it, the more this looks like MANY thefts. Two weeks ago (or so), MyPayrollHR correctly transfers the payroll from it's customers to Cachet’s holding account. Cachet correctly disburses those funds to the many employees of MyPayrollHR's customers.
So far, so good. Then MyPayrollHR diverts this weeks payroll from it's customers into a private account (theft), then sucks millions out of Cachet's holding account (another theft), so then then the employees' money from last pay period gets sucked out of their accounts into Cachet's (many more thefts, this time by Cachet or their bank). Then the employee's money from the previous pay period gets sucked out too. Cachet says that one was an error, but it looks like even if the error is nullified, there is still a large number of thefts from the employees.
Cachet certainly got robbed, but the employees bear no responsibility for that, so why was their money touched at all? Shit rolls down hill may be a general description of the way things tend to work, but it's not a valid defense for theft.