Cashiers Checks updated
So, I asked earlier why they make me get a cashiers check as part of closing. So, at closing, I decided to ask. The title guy said it was required by state law. I asked if cash would have been OK and he said it would have been.
Also, we went to a local bank to close. The bank had nothing to do with the transaction other than, apparently, the title guy or mortgage lady rented a conference room from them that was convenient for us to get to. Heading into the bank, I was met with this sign that caused me to stop and laugh out loud:
 |
| From Misc |
Wow. Relying on a sign. Why not put up a Robbing is Prohibited sign? And there’s the fact that their other sign prohibiting weapons does not appear to comply with Tennessee State Law which has requirements for signs prohibiting the otherwise lawful carrying of weapons by permit holders.
Regardless of that, I won’t be doing any business with BankEast.
Update: Heh:
Why didn’t they just staple a sprig of wolfsbane and a few cloves of garlic over the doorway while they were at it?
May 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I hate those signs about no sunglasses. In fact, I make it a point to put mine on if I see it. I’ve only been asked to take them off once. I looked at the woman, told her they were prescription and that if she forces me to take them off, I won’t be able to even see the checks in front of me. So if she wanted to refuse simple accommodation for my disability, I would be happy to call up a lawyer to talk to the bank executives about ADA. It was in Massachusetts, so I loved the look on her face. She was falling all over herself trying to apologize.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:18 am
To be fair, if they do it right, they’re not just relying on the sign.
Navy Federal Credit Union recently instituted the same policy, and they use the signs to warn folks to remove these items upon entry. If you don’t, an employee is going to come up to you to ask that you comply with policy. Undoubtedly, this alone will discourage some robbers.
On the other hand, at some point it puts the employee directly in harm’s way when it’s the bad guy who doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about their policy.
I say, if 7-11 can demand I can wear a shirt and shoes, a financial institution can demand that I not wear headgear or sunglasses.
Oh, wait…what about someone who’s blind?
And one final thought that just came to mind: a few months back, a Muslim woman who wanted to conduct business at NFCU was taken to a back room and was provided services away from the lobby. She raised a stink, saying she was singled out. Well, duh.
I don’t know why she was complaining, since she didn’t have to wait in line and had someone’s constant attention while she was in there.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Sure, but the type of robbers that policy will deter would as easily be deterred by the teller saying “No!” when the robber asks “Please give me the money.”
The type of robbers that won’t be deterred by this policy will just bust a cap in the branch manager’s kneecap when he walks up to complain about the dress code violation, just to get the ball rolling.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am
well, sure. I agree with 7-11’s policy and will shop there as a result. I do not agree with bankeast’s and my business goes elsewhere.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Naah. Ain’t no state has the authority to diss U.S. legal tender. It’s the cash transaction reporting requirements passed in 1986/87. Buying anything, with over $10,000.00 cash, is a big pain in the neck these days. My family is big in real estate and in the early ’80s I helped out at some closings. The title companies would have a cashier where you would go, plunk down your money, and come back to the table with your receipt. It ended on January 1, 1987.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Funny NFCU story about the new, brain dead policy.
Buddy of mine walks into a branch down in the Hampton Roads area.
He is wearing one of those ‘chic’ Infidel ball caps.
Backwards.
As you can imagine, this does not, in any way, impede the view of his face.
An employee goes to stop him to have him take off his hat. Said employee does this by putting his hand up and attempting to get in buddy’s way.
Something I should mention. Buddy is about 6’2″ and probably 350. Big. Large. Heavy.
Employee is maybe a buck 50..
You can see where this is going.
Buddy basically shoulders him aside while giving him a run down on VA’s laws when it comes to battery, etc.
A fun time was had by all.
TR
May 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Why didn’t they just staple a sprig of wolfsbane and a few cloves of garlic over the doorway while they were at it?
Well, werewolves would only come out after bankers’ hours and vampires would be interested only in a blood bank. (Ducks)
May 12th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
My former teacher’s credit union in my old hometown (I still have a few $$ in a savings account there) has the correct Texas 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry. Granted, they usually have an armed Fort Bend County Sheriff’s deputy in uniform either sitting or standing in their small lobby, but still, the BG’s just shoot him first then what? I thought about writing them a letter to set them straight, but since I don’t actually live there anymore, I figured it’s just let it go. Just glad I don’t *actively* bank there now (checking account there is $0.00 balance)
On the other hand, the public library in McKinney, Texas and the local UPS warehouse here in Denton have signs similar to the one in Uncle’s picture, i.e. NOT compliant with Texas law, so I just ignore them.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The signage is the same in Texas, fyi.
I had a conversation with a branch manager about the decal of the little gun with the red circle around it, and how it did not meet Texas requirements to stop legal CHL holders from carrying in their establishment. She seemed accepting of the info, and said she would take it up with corporate. The sign stayed the same, and no legally binding sign appeared.
I did not discuss it with her again, but now I see that the little sign is to make anti-gunners feel good, without impeding the rights of pro-gunners to lawfully carry there. Good public relations, is what that is.
A decade or so ago any Texas cowboy just would have looked at you funny and gone on about their business if you told them to remove their hat.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
7-11 isn’t requiring shirt and shoes; the local health dept is. (Or if 7-11 is, it is for the same reason as the health code does.)
There’s a PITA security guard at my place that actually scrutinizes closely each badge that goes by. I wonder what he gets out of it since I habitually wear sunglasses and ballcap on entering in the morning.Everyone else just checks that I have a badge. This is OK since I still have to swipe the badge to get in. The visual badge check is to discourage shoulder-surfing in.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I saw one of those “No Guns Allowed” signs at a movie theater in St Louis. I commented about it to a co-worker of mine, and about 30 seconds later a plain-clothes detective walked in with a sig strapped on.
I got the manager’s attention, pointed to the clearly off-duty cop, and said “hey, I think your sign is broken.”
May 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The gas station/convenience store by my house had a big sign up on Halloween that said “NO MASKS ALLOWED!”
I can see that. Made me wonder if robbers traditionally take advantage of Halloween to ply their trade.
Also, here in SC, we have a law about proper signage for weapons prohibition. Many businesses (seems like ALL the banks) have non-complying signs. When asked about it a lot of these businesses will tell you that they know their signs are not legally binding and they did that intentionally. In fact, they often tell you that they welcome permit holders carrying on the premises. The legal permit holders can still carry there, and they know they can because it’s a required part of the course you have to take, while the sheeple get the warm fuzzies because they see the sign and the robbers are free to ignore the sign just like they always have.
Everyone is happy.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Businesses that put up a 30.06 sign should compensate the state for the extra police expense their disarmed status costs.
I think a 1% sales tax surcharge would be appropriate.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Since people who wear their hats and sunglasses indoors are just boors, why not put up a sign that bans boorish behavior?
May 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I confess, I can be pretty damned boorish.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I wear a cap everywhere. Used to be a cowboy hat, but since I broke a foot that didn’t heal properly, I have refused to wear a Stetson with tennis shoes. But I still wear a cap everywhere. I’m not taking it off because someone else is scared of life. Let them leave until my business is done.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Score one for the Volksrepublik, I guess.
No binding signage. A business can put up all the signs they want. They could have a giant sign party on their front lawn and I am perfectly free to walk right by, Glock on my hip, and visit their establishment…
Of course, it’s *still* MA, when the day is done…
May 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
First time I heard/saw this signage was about 15 years ago in Honolulu. They were having a string of bank robberies and that was the FBI solution, no hats or sunglasses. I was surprised that a guy could rob banks for months on an island and not be caught or identified. They finally did catch him. He would fly in from Maui, rob a bank and catch the next flight back. I assume, he stashed his gun in Honolulu.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Wow. Relying on a sign. Why not put up a Robbing is Prohibited sign?
I think this is similar to the regulations against joking about terrorist attacks in airports and carrying guns onto planes. Its not that you are necessarily a robber if you bring a gun into a bank, wear sunglasses, etc., but it does give the bank the ability to take action immediately if you come in with any of those things.