At least.Trying to keep it, & then returning it bespeaks very poor judgement.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
At least.Trying to keep it, & then returning it bespeaks very poor judgement.
I agree. But I have seen that sort of thing happen in banks, before. And not based on skin color. It was based on perceived economic status.Whatever the workers' reasons,
they were wrongo pongo.
You know their reason, eh.I agree. But I have seen that sort of thing happen in banks, before. And not based on skin color. It was based on perceived economic status.
Somewhat of a stink ensued in a bank in Chicago one time because a roofing crew came in to cash their checks. They were not members of the bank, but the checks were written from that bank. The teller didn't want to cash them and the laborers claimed they legally had to. A manager was called, and she told them she would cash their checks this time but they weren't welcome in the bank in the future looking like dirty roofers. Roofing is a hot, hard, dirty job involving tar and gravel, and they looked the part. The bank clearly wanted to foster an image that nice clean business people would feel comfortable with. Not an image of a place dirty laborers came to cash their checks on Friday afternoon before they went to the bar.You know their reason, eh.
By telepathy?
That example doesn't mean that all other workersSomewhat of a stink ensued in a bank in Chicago one time because a roofing crew came in to cash their checks. They were not members of the bank, but the checks were written from that bank. The teller didn't want to cash them and the laborers claimed they legally had to. A manager was called, and she told them she would cash their checks this time but they weren't welcome in the bank in the future looking like dirty roofers. Roofing is a hot, hard, dirty job involving tar and gravel, and they looked the part. The bank clearly wanted to foster an image that nice clean business people would feel comfortable with. Not an image of a place dirty laborers came to cash their checks on Friday afternoon before they went to the bar.
We have no real idea why that woman in the story was mistreated. Maybe it was just plain racism. Maybe the teller resented the fact that she'd won some money (didn't earn it). People can get weird about that sort of thing. And my example happened many years ago. So I doubt very much that bank would chastise anyone for wearing work clothes into their lobby, today. But businesses do sometimes get arrogant that way. Wanting to create a "wealthy" impression and all that. Banks, restaurants, specialty stores, and so on. Such rude and sometimes racist behavior does still happen.That example doesn't mean that all other workers
in all other banks all have the identical motive.
And your example has a significant possible
difference, ie, being inappropriately attired.
Exactly.We have no real idea why that woman in the story was mistreated.
It's an unfortunate reminder of the racial biases and discrimination that individuals, particularly those from minority communities, can face in everyday situations, including financial transactions.Casino jackpot winner alleges Michigan bank wouldn’t cash her prize check because she’s Black (msn.com)
You'd think in this day and age, banks would have the technology to determine if a check is fraudulent or not. Besides, the check had her name and address on it, which matched her driver's license. That should have been enough to satisfy the bank's requirements. In the old days, they might have still allowed her to deposit it, while putting a hold on her ability to withdraw any funds until the check cleared. I've encountered that before.
She didn't have an account at the bank, so if the bank didn't want to cash it, that would be their prerogative. However, the fact that they tried to keep the check (because they wrongly assumed it was fraudulent) is where they crossed the line.
She said it was "three white female employees" who told her the check was fraudulent. The bank claims that Ms. Pugh may have "misinterpreted" their employees' actions. I wish they had interviewed these employees, as it would be interesting to know what they were thinking at the time. The bank's statement would indicate that they didn't believe the employees' actions were due to the fact that she was black. They are effectively denying the charge of racial discrimination. It would be better to gamble on the site and not worry about anything.
I guess what baffles me is that I'm unclear on the actual thought processes taking place. Like these white bank employees; did they consciously decide that "we're not going to help this woman because she is black"? Was that a conscious thought process they went through, or was it something sub-conscious and something they may not have been aware of? Was the management team at the bank complicit in this? What responsibility do they have in screening and supervising their employees?
I often wonder the same thing when it comes to cops when they mistreat or kill black suspects in their custody. Are they consciously thinking "I'm going to give this person a hard time because they're black"? Or again, is it something more sub-conscious at work?
I realize there are also some who might doubt the veracity of this story or perhaps might think the events are not being accurately presented in the article. Perhaps there's more here that's not being said, and I understand that that might come up. I've also seen some people roll their eyes at the notion of "playing the race card," which implies there might be some other reason for someone's actions other than racism. Although it's hard to see how this can be easily explained away, especially since it was clearly a valid check with her name and address, and she had her driver's license.