Defending the banks!?

This is in response to Kristian Gravenor’s column regarding the inadequacy of current bank practices and the banks’ inability to meet the demands of the majority of their non-wealthy patrons [“Why our banks suck,” Dec. 13].
The man whose U.S. cheque was held for 60 days while he retained a $10,000 limit on his credit card particularly interests me. I wonder if Mr. Gravenor realizes that the problems of one inexperienced clerk should not vilify the practices of an entire banking procedure.
Working for a bank for almost 5 years now, I can tell you that the decision to hold funds on a cheque are issued with exception. One must always consider not the particular wealth of the individual, but their tenure with the bank, the manner in which they conduct business (are they constantly in overdraft or delinquent in payments?) and the purpose of the cheque. Paying off a loan is one thing, but giving direct payment (let’s say to a VISA bill run up to its limit) allows the customer to withdraw funds immediately. What’s the alternative if the cheque in question is fraudulent or NSF? Should banks take the loss in such cases? Rules are not arbitrarily made to constrict the way in which a client is able to access their funds.
That being said, 60 days is fully twice the usual hold on American funds. The client’s length of time with the bank, his overall credit worthiness and the actual cheque (from an identifiable bank or one of the many small unknown banks in the U.S.) must all be considered. If the client is unsatisfied with the teller’s decision, he can always ask for a manager.
Bank fees should represent only a small portion of overall personal revenue leakage. Yes, the fees are annoying and yes, there exists an inherent bias that favours those with more money over those with less. From a business perspective, if the company who pays you the most in advertising asks you for a favour would you deny them their request in the same way you would for a company who pays you the least?
The continual practice of categorizing profitability along moral lines needs to stop. If a practice causes severe and egregious harm to the majority of people, it becomes a social ill—$5 a month can hardly be deemed socially straining.
The fraudulent practices of a few have consequences on the many; such is the nature of our economy and thus it is reflected in our banking system. Holding cheques is a practice that has come about in response to those who recklessly abuse the system. P.S. All criticisms are written out of jealousy.

—Rhonda Chung, Toronto

Very anti-lefty

Ted Allan? Never heard of the guy [“Left-wing hero,” Jan. 3]. And it’s a good thing since I probably would have wasted my time reading his stuff. Matthew Hays describes his plays and books as “exceptional.” How, I ask, could that be, if he couldn’t see, remotely even, the real nature of the Soviet Union during the Cold War? I thought artists were supposed to reflect human nature relatively accurately in their works; that’s what makes some artists exceptional. But this left-wing asshole was living in Utopia-land, so what kind of plays could these be? Probably, some stupid forms of socialist “realism” with idealized workers and peasants and the like. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, maybe his post-nervous breakdown works had some value, when he had finally woken up.
His story made me realize that the contemporary left is full of Ted Allans. They’re maybe not so dense as to think that the Soviet Union would have been worth promoting, but the left still sees reality inaccurately in many respects. Witness the apparition of anarchist shits like Noam Chomsky and his brood of deluded followers, to the wars in Kosovo and now in Afghanistan. In addition to all the usual ignorant reasons that were put forth to oppose these just wars, there are even suggestions that major commercial interests were and are at stake. The left will find them! Let’s hope they don’t also enter psycho wards in droves while they are busy looking for Evil.

—Marco Ermacora