Previously on TheAngryPen:

09-12-2000 2 Parties

08-18-2000 Al’s Acceptance

08-10-2000 Gore’s Choice

08-03-2000 The American Dream

07-20-2000 History and Hollywood

07-13-2000 40 Acres and a Mule

07-06-2000 The God We Trust

06-29-2000 Lyrical Assault

06-15-2000 Bank Fees

06-07-2000 A Mixture Often of Incongruous Elements

05-24-2000 Social Security

05-17-2000 Governmental Good Intentions

05-10-2000 Johnny Reb and Disgusting Fatbodies

05-03-2000 Low Fidelity

04-26-2000 Jackboots and Black Helicopters

04-19-2000 Movie Trailers

04-12-2000 All Things Cuban

04-05-2000 Censorship

03-29-2000 Juries and Tobacco

03-22-2000 Several Things

03-15-2000 Gore the Reformer

03-08-2000 Mission to Mars

03-08-2000 Super Tuesday

03-03-2000 Little Johnny Murderer

03-01-2000 Bob Jones

02-23-2000 The Christian Coalition

02-16-2000 Valentine's Day

02-09-2000 Short-Sighted Political Parties

02-02-2000 Mosh Pits

01-12-2000 Al Gore's Personality

11-17-1999 Playboy

09-02-1999 The Demise of Heavy Metal

	TheAngryPen vs. Bank Fees

The Pen hates it when Corporations whine. It’s just one of those pet peeves of mine. And this comes from a guy who considers himself very pro-corporation for the most part. I know that when corporations get rich, there is often an opportunity for me to do so as well. It’s that ole’ “Trickle-Down” thing again. I know, I know, you didn’t buy it in ’85 and you don’t buy it now. That’s OK, I’m not looking for converts. It’s enough for me to look at my Schwab statements every month and know the truth.

But The Pen digresses.

What The Pen really want to say is this: Normally, I’m the kind of Pen to turn a blind eye to corporations that casually stab me in the back in pursuit of increased profits. I’m worldly enough to know that this is the way that things go ‘round. And for the most part, I can look after myself. I don’t need the Government to come running in every five minutes to save me from the latest corporate transgression. But when those same corporations come crying to me about all the blood they have to clean off their stilettos…well that’s when I tend to get a little pissy.

What we have in the case Santa Monica, California’s law banning banks from charging certain kinds of fees to use their ATMs, is a case of corporations whining because they got caught inserting an enormous scythe into the backs of their unsuspecting customers, and not being real happy about it. I know it sucks to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but they should keep their mouths shut on this one, because the bottom line is this: I knew I was getting screwed paying ten-plus dollars every month in fees for the privilege of banking with my faceless, monolithic, corporate bank, but I was willing to let that slide. But when my bank joined in with the “woe-are-us’s ” that I’m hearing day-in and day-out from that industry these days, the Angry Pen could be silent no longer.

The simple fact is that the banks are missing the point of Santa Monica’s law. They say “Hey c’mon, you wouldn’t let, say, customers from “Bally’s Gym” use the facilities over at “Bodies in Motion” for free now would you? Well, all we’re asking is that you let us charge other bank customers for using the services that we, and by extension our customers, pay for.”

Seems reasonable to me. Each bank makes enormous capital outlays for their ATM machines, which combine to make personal banking a much more convenient enterprise for everyone. And no one has spent more in that arena than the big banking corporations. I have absolutely no problem with a bank charging other banks’ customers when those customers take advantage of a capital asset they didn’t pay for.

BUT, and I think the citizens of Santa Monica would agree with The Pen here, that ain’t the only thing we’re talkin’ about, and that ain’t the only thing that’s gotten Santa Monica’s dander up to the tune of a city law. No, what I--what WE--object to is the fact that these banks want to charge THEIR OWN customers each time they use another bank’s machine. You get that? Let’s say I’m driving around an unfamiliar neighborhood and I need cash really, really badly. I can’t find one of my bank’s ATMs so, in desperation, I use one of the other guys’ ATMs. Even after I choose to bend over and accept the fee charged by the other bank, my bank then wants the right to penalize me, in the form of a second fee, for making that choice. I’m sorry, but that seems a little bit like my regular mechanic charging me a fee because my car broke down in another state and I had it towed to a local guy, rather than all the way back to his place.

I mean, really, what are we supposed to do in these situations? I know what the banks would say, because I’ve asked them. Their response was to send me a three-inch-thick book containing the address of every ATM in the entire country. Well.

I guess I’m supposed to carry this gigantic tome with me at all times and, no matter where I am in the world, somehow track down my bank’s ATMs in order to save two bucks. Now, what are the chances that, when faced with that decision in the heat of the moment, I’m going to choose to inconvenience myself in an unfamiliar place, just to save a lousy two bucks? Can you say… “absolutely freakin’ zero!?” And so my bank feels comfortable charging me a fee for making that choice precisely because they know that I will make it. Their rather specious reasoning being, “we made the damn ATMs available, if you decided it wasn’t worth the inconvenience to find one of ours, then these are the consequences.” It’s extortion really. Does anyone believe that any bank is harmed in any financial way every time some other bank’s ATMs get used instead of theirs?

Well if you do believe such silliness, then that belief in-and-of-itself reveals a part of your hypocrisy. How can a corporation that punishes its customers with a fee for not using a particular ATM, turn right around and punish non-customers who do use that same ATM!? It’s ridiculous circular logic and I don’t know how they live with themselves. I guess the answer is contained somewhere in each bank chairman’s monthly Schwab statement.

At any rate, this back-stabbery went on for a while, we let them get away with it, and they made a lot of money, until such a time came to pass when we, their customers, got sick to death of it. And now that the free lunch is gone, they want to bitch and whine and cry about it? Oh, hell no!

As far as I’m concerned, they’re getting off easy.

If I were a Santa Monica lawmaker, here are a few of the issues I’d bring up:

Let’s talk about that ten dollars-plus fee I mentioned a while back. Exactly what does that one hundred twenty dollars a year buy me anyway? I can tell you what it doesn’t buy me. It doesn’t buy me compassion or understanding, and on this point at least, my anti-corporation friends on the other side of the political aisle and I can agree. You gotta keep your eye on these corporations, cause if you give ‘em the chance, they’ll rob ya blind.

Here’s a little story:

Couple years ago I took a trip to Europe. While there, I was using my ATM card to draw cash off of my bank account. At one point, a local Italian ATM informed me that my account could not be accessed. Being in Europe with no cash, I panicked and tried several more times to access the account, figuring that I might have entered my PIN incorrectly or something. Each time I was greeted with the same result…nothing. I finally had to borrow cash from a friend. When I returned from Europe, I discovered that I was charged a $3.00 fee each time I tried to find out what was going on (4 times, for a grand total of $12). I consider this a relatively large “service” fee considering that I didn’t get any actual service for it (i.e. no cash was made available to me). Do you get that!? I was panicking, and my bank, which is supposed to be there for me when I need help, wasn’t able to actually provide me with any service, and then charged me a “service” fee for the privilege of not being served. Thanks for being so understanding.

But it gets worse. I expected to be charged for my use of European bank machines; years of corporate banking have inured me to this particular indignity. What I was not prepared for was the fact that the charge was double the regular fee for using a domestic bank machine. Now what, exactly, is the rationale behind that!? Am I to believe that it’s more inconvenient for my bank to receive computer data from Europe than it is to receive the exact same data from some other guy’s ATM in Rancho Cucamonga!? Or are they still using couriers on donkeys to deliver information about my account from branch to branch these days?

Now, I’m willing to concede the possibility that international data transmission costs my bank more than the domestic variety, but if that is the sole reason my fees are higher for international ATM usage, well then how does do they explain the following: I also used my ATM card for purchases several times in Europe (once from a little old lady who spoke only Italian and took down my information on little scraps of paper) and was never charged a single fee, even though I used the exact same ATM card, and cash was debited from the exact same account, just as if I’d taken the cash out via ATM, myself!? Now I just know that no one out there is going to try to convince me that using a European cash machine costs my bank money, while interpreting information sent to them by an old Italian shopkeeper does not!

All of which brings up the following question: If every time I require service, I’m charged for it, WHAT THE HELL AM I PAYING A MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE FOR!?!?!? And please try to remember, all you corporate banks out there, that “we need your service fees to finance our acquisition of other banks”, is not a sufficient answer.

I’m just barely old enough to have once banked with a local, single branch, bank. Sure it was inconvenient. When I withdrew money, I had to plan ahead and take out as much as I would need for several days. It was a pain sometimes, but I spent a lot less money when that cash wasn’t so accessible, and my checking account was free. I saw much more of Louis, my account manager, than I maybe should’ve had to, but I’ll tell you something, it’s times like this when I miss ole Louis. He may have been a businessman, but he was flesh-and-blood, not a corporate robo-monkey. And on some level, he cared whether my banking experience was a good one or a bad one.

Clearly, the people of Santa Monica miss their own personal Louis’ too.  

*The Webster's definition of mélange