RBS to discipline staff if they don't hold an RBS Account

Reluctant Hero · RBS to discipline staff if they don't hold an RBS Account

You just couldn't make it up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6482979.stm

Account warning for bank workers

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) has warned its UK staff that they must have their primary bank account with the firm or face disciplinary action.
In a letter obtained by union Amicus, a senior executive told staff salaries must be paid into an RBS-run account.

"Failure to do so will represent a breach of group policy," it said.

The bank said its policy was in line with other leading banks but Amicus said it was taking legal advice, accusing RBS of "heavy-handedness".

Staff rewards

Amicus said up to 14,000 RBS staff still maintained their primary accounts with competitors.

As well as Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS Group owns NatWest, Direct Line and Churchill Insurance.

RBS said it explained to all staff at their interviews that they would be required to hold an RBS Group-administered current account for the purpose of receiving their salaries.

It said this was part of the "overall reward package" on offer to staff.

"In common with industry practice, our terms and conditions require staff to open a current account with us for the payment of their salary," a spokeswoman said.

"Our staff are at complete liberty to run accounts with other providers if they wish."

'Heavy-handed approach'

One Royal Bank of Scotland member of staff told the BBC that the bank's action as "atrocious" and said it was "sapping morale".

The person pointed out that staff who worked for companies such as Direct Line and Churchill before they were taken over by RBS now faced disciplinary action if they did not comply with the account instruction.

"People in my office have all had it and they are all staff in excess of 10 years.

"It would never have been part of their original contract to have an RBS account. If it was, why has it taken 10 years to chase them on it?"

Stephen Cape, the BBC's Labour Affairs Correspondent, said unions were unhappy with the way the bank had handled the issue.

Amicus said it had been contacted by RBS staff unhappy about the requirement and urged the bank to reconsider its position.

"If you work for Tesco you won't be disciplined for buying your groceries from Sainsbury's," said official Rob Macgregor.

"RBS's disproportionate and heavy-handed approach is counterproductive and bad for morale."

Aventinian

They can always resign if they don't like their terms of employment.

That said, it does sound a bit ridiculous. RBS should perhaps consider the benefits of being somewhat more respectful to their staff.

wisnaeme

Regardless of who their employer is, it is their money as they have earned it and they have the right to choose what financial company to deal with. A consumer or investor has the right of choice, a choice based on who would give them the best service and the best value for their needs or financial obligations.

If this abuse of employees is allowed to stand in law and is made compulsory by RBS then can RBS be taken to court through the small claims proceedure on these grounds.

If another financial institution offers better interest rates and terms for savings and investment ( or credit ) than compulsory RBS employee dealings with RBS, then that employee is lawfully entitled to claim the financial difference for what benefits an employee would have received through the use of sevices by another financial services provider. That action if multiplied would no doubt cause severe embarrassment to the greedy control freaks, RBS would incur financial penalties,court costs and that would hurt them where it counts most. I have no doubt they would also loose beezness through adverse publicity.

If it can be proven that RBS have in any way coerced, threatened adverse consequences or behaved in an intimidating manner towards their employees in a perceived threatening way in order to gain financially then RBS is indeed hanging on a very shoogly peg in this matter.

Pip

I'm a bit surprised that it's not part of their staff contract. At every other bank that I know of (including Nat West which RBS owns), staff have to hold an account with the bank and have their salary paid into it. There are normally benefits to a staff account, better interest rate etc, so unless RBS are completely different from all of their competitors, you'd be a bit mad not to have one.

However if they're saying that you can't hold an account elsewhere, and that all of your standing orders etc have to go through RBS then there's a bit of a different issue.

Jimbo

Wisnaeme is right, there are laws in this country to cover this kind of thing and any RBS staff should contact their lawyer or the police with a view to taking them to court if they should proceed with this coercion. I wouldn't think they would want this kind of adverse publicity.

ranter · RBS

RBS sanctions.
Outragous! Scandalous!
If this employer gets away with this, where will it all end? Will Sainsbury staff be penalised for shopping at Tesco? If you work in a VW car showroom will you still be allowed to drive a Honda?
If it wasn't so serious it would be hysterically funny.

Reluctant Hero

Welcome to the site ranter!

I was watching breakfast TV this morning and there was a lawyer on giving her opinion on the situation.

She said if it is mentioned in the contract of employment before the employee starts, then it is OK, but if the terms of employment are changed retrospectively, then this was not OK.

But as other people have said where does all this end? Max Barry's novel, "Jennifer Government" might not be so far off the mark.

ranter · RBS

I was listening to Radio Scotland this morning, and they also had a lawyer banging on about the legalities in all of this. Apparently the staff can have as many bank accounts as they wish, as long as their wages go into RBS. Aye right! RBS also consider it a perk to have this available as it attracts special rates etc. Aye Right! Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I'm actally thinking of withdrawing my hard earned cash out of their account- purely on a point of principle!
C'mon the RBS customers- let's all vote wi' our feet.

Morph

i cant see why this view point would be taken by the bank. This getting out into the public domain has done nothing but harm the banks good name. People should be able to do whatever they wish with their money even if their employer only wants to do 'whats right for them' as ranter says whats next? I work in a pub does that mean i cant spend any money i make there in another pub? Confused

Fidget · Re: RBS

mairead

I agree with fidget. Suely there can be very little privacy of an employees account.

azzuri

I worked for HBOS a few years ago while at uni and an account with them was required also so that your wages could be paid into it.

mairead · RBS to disciplone staff if

Apart from anything else that's akin to, for example, Marks and Spencer managment issuing orders that ll staff must buy all their needs in Marks and Spencer, Mercedes telling their lot that they can only drive Mercedes etc etc. Talk about Big Brother..

RBS to discipline staff if they don't hold an RBS Account

RBS

RBS

Re: RBS

RBS to disciplone staff if