Page 1 of 2
Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:37 pm
by HooG19
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324197,00.html
Bankers Association Wants 'No Hats, No Hoods, No Sunglasses' Policy
Monday, January 21, 2008
SARASOTA, Fla. — Responding to a more than one-third hike in bank robbery, the Florida Bankers Association is urging its members to adopt new rules.
Not additional guards or cameras, but a dress code for customers.
The group rolled out a "No Hats, No Hoods, No Sunglasses" program, which includes lobby signs asking customers to remove those items before approaching a teller.
Those who refuse would be directed to an area with more security or a more experienced teller.
"Bankers aren't just going to hope robbers won't come," FBA president Alex Sanchez said. "The 'No Hats' program is one more layer of protection for banks, employees and bank customers."
The dress code is optional, and some banks say they have no plans to adopt it. Wachovia, among the largest banks in Florida, is one of them.
"We realize and recognize that there are circumstances, such as religious traditions, that might make this offensive to some of our customers," Wachovia spokeswoman Kathy Harrison said.
Florida was ninth in the country for bank robberies in 2006, with 265. That number climbed to 361 robberies last year, in which more than $2.4 million was swiped.
The FBA says some 40 percent of all bank robberies involve some kind of facial disguise: masks, helmets or other head coverings.
"While it may take some time for customers to become accustomed to it, once they understand it is for the safety of bank employees and for customers like themselves, they will be more willing to participate," said FBA spokeswoman Renee Thompson.
It has worked in other states. Missouri, for example, reportedly saw a 47 percent drop in bank heists after adopting it in 2002.
"We believe we'll see immediate benefits," said Rick Lee, FBA chairman and president of Citizens Bank of Florida in Oviedo.
[rhetorical question] Can anyone explain the logic behind this and the "No Guns" signs? [/rhetorical question]
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:31 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
I think it's interesting. Banks are public accommodations, but as far as I'm concerned if they want to have a "hats off" policy or some such, it's OK by me. Anybody who doesn't like it can go do their banking somewhere else.
Realistically, if it were my bank I might limit it to hats with a bill like ball caps. Skullcap types of hats would seem to pose no problem.
I can see where some types of religious attire could be problematic. If I were running things I would probably say, "Too bad. Establish your own bank if you don't like it." But our courts might not be so "enlightened".
Oh well.
Does anyone know how that case was decided in FL where someone wanted to have their DL photo taken wearing some kind of head covering where only their eyes showed?
As for "no guns" signs or policies, well, y'all know what I think of that.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:43 pm
by seamusTX
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Banks are public accommodations,...
My understanding of public accommodations law is that people cannot be excluded if the sole basis of excluding them is membership in a protected class. The federal protected classes are race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and the now-obsolete former condition of servitude.
Age is iffy. You can have lower age limits but not upper ones.
(Correct me if I forgot one.)
If a business wants to exclude ugly or smelly people, they are free to do so.
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Does anyone know how that case was decided in FL where someone wanted to have their DL photo taken wearing some kind of head covering where only their eyes showed?
It's allowed in a bunch of states. Maybe more than half at this point.
- Jim
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:52 pm
by bluelineman
I wear transition lenses in my glasses. They take a few minutes to go back to clear when coming inside. Would they make me wait until they were clear before I could come in? Maybe I could go to that "more experienced teller".
I see what they're trying to do but it almost sounds like another "feel good" measure. Like "drug free" & "gun free" zones. Maybe it will work??? I guess time will tell.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:14 pm
by KD5NRH
bluelineman wrote:I wear transition lenses in my glasses. They take a few minutes to go back to clear when coming inside. Would they make me wait until they were clear before I could come in? Maybe I could go to that "more experienced teller".
If I wear a ski mask, can I get one that's actually competent?
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:30 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Does anyone know how that case was decided in FL where someone wanted to have their DL photo taken wearing some kind of head covering where only their eyes showed?
It's allowed in a bunch of states. Maybe more than half at this point.
My question was a little different. No doubt, a state could allow it by statute or policy. (Idiotic in my view, but I don't see anything stopping a state from allowing it, at least under current law. That might change when/if the feds make a clear face shot a requirement under Homeland Security rules, but for now there's no barrier that I know of.)
But I was asking how FL's case came out in particular. FL required a clear face shot, and a DL applicant contested it, claiming a religious exemption. FL did not agree, and the case went to court - federal court as I seem to recall.
I was wondering if the case was resolved, and how. If it was, there's case law for that particular district or circuit, depending on how high the case got on appeal.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
by Xander
KD5NRH wrote:bluelineman wrote:I wear transition lenses in my glasses. They take a few minutes to go back to clear when coming inside. Would they make me wait until they were clear before I could come in? Maybe I could go to that "more experienced teller".
If I wear a ski mask, can I get one that's actually competent?
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:14 am
by Xander
frankie_the_yankee wrote:I think it's interesting. Banks are public accommodations, but as far as I'm concerned if they want to have a "hats off" policy or some such, it's OK by me. Anybody who doesn't like it can go do their banking somewhere else.
I would be one of those people going somewhere else. Businesses that want my money do not get to tell me how to dress when I'm buying whatever product or service they're trying to sell me, if I have a choice.
frankie_the_yankee wrote:I can see where some types of religious attire could be problematic. If I were running things I would probably say, "Too bad. Establish your own bank if you don't like it." But our courts might not be so "enlightened".
Enlightened? How 'bout if you're running things you also ban black people, since according to the FBI statistics they comprised the majority (just over 50%, in 2006) of all bank robbers? You can "enlighten" your banking system right back into the nineteenth century, when, guess what....They still had bank robberies.
Perhaps we would be better off if the geniuses over at the Florida Bankers Association recognized the *real* problem, which is that banks are very soft targets. It's common knowledge that you can walk into a bank, hand the teller a note, and walk out with money that didn't belong to you two minutes ago. For cryin' out loud...When a couple of giggling teenage girls on cell phones can hold up a bank, you know that banks have lowered the bar to the point that the actual act of robbing a bank is nearly a risk-free proposition. If they quit handing out money to everybody with a note, and start, say, hitting audible alarms instead of silent ones, they'll eliminate 90% percent of bank robberies which are perpetrated by casual bungling opportunists who know that it's easier money than panhandling.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:48 am
by frankie_the_yankee
Enlightened? How 'bout if you're running things you also ban black people, since according to the FBI statistics they comprised the majority (just over 50%, in 2006) of all bank robbers?
That would be illegal by way of one of the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 60's. Not to mention that in my opinion at least, it would be wrong.
I am not aware of any such act that lists wearers of hats or masks as a protected class. But it is possible that there is case law on this that I am not aware of, which is why I asked my question.
And if it were my bank and I had a "no hats or masks" policy, or something like that, (assuming no law existed to the contrary) it would sound like a win-win-win situation to me. You would patronize a different bank that you liked better. You win. They would, I'm sure, be delighted to have your business, (They win.) and all my customers would be hatless and maskless (so my cameras could get nice clear shots of them all) in line with my preferences. I win.
Freedom is pretty cool.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:06 am
by Xander
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Enlightened? How 'bout if you're running things you also ban black people, since according to the FBI statistics they comprised the majority (just over 50%, in 2006) of all bank robbers?
That would be illegal by way of one of the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 60's. Not to mention that in my opinion at least, it would be wrong.
I am not aware of any such act that lists wearers of hats or masks as a protected class. But it is possible that there is case law on this that I am not aware of, which is why I asked my question.
Your quote that I referenced was specifically referring to forcing those with certain religious beliefs to remove their headwear. I was simply making an example that substituted one protected class for another.
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
And if it were my bank and I had a "no hats or masks" policy, or something like that, (assuming no law existed to the contrary) it would sound like a win-win-win situation to me. You would patronize a different bank that you liked better. You win. They would, I'm sure, be delighted to have your business, (They win.) and all my customers would be hatless and maskless (so my cameras could get nice clear shots of them all) in line with my preferences. I win.
Freedom is pretty cool.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to institute any rule they want, within reason. Forcing an Islamic woman to remove her burqa, or banning blacks are two measures that would be unreasonable. I'm simply arguing that it's stupid, it won't stop determined criminals any more than no guns signs, and there are better ways to stop less resolute criminals *without* annoying the customers you claim to serve in the process.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:40 am
by KD5NRH
frankie_the_yankee wrote:I can see where some types of religious attire could be problematic. If I were running things I would probably say, "Too bad. Establish your own bank if you don't like it." But our courts might not be so "enlightened".
I suspect that telling a bunch of guys in yarmulkes that they should go open up a competing bank would be rather unhealthy for your business.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:14 am
by seamusTX
frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I was asking how FL's case came out in particular. FL required a clear face shot, and a DL applicant contested it, claiming a religious exemption. FL did not agree, and the case went to court - federal court as I seem to recall.
I was wondering if the case was resolved, and how.
They compromised after the plaintiffs lost in court. Google "Najat Tamim-Muhammad" and "Sultaana Freeman." Good luck on who's telling an accurate story.
- Jim
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:14 am
by Liberty
The ban on hoodies, sun glasses, guns, and hats are a good thing. I'm sure the bank robbers will choose not robbing the bank rather than go in unarmed and with their faces hanging out. the banks need to hang a "do not rob me sign". It should be as effective as any of the other signs.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:31 am
by Lucky45
bluelineman wrote:I wear transition lenses in my glasses. They take a few minutes to go back to clear when coming inside. Would they make me wait until they were clear before I could come in?
C'mon now ??!!
I think that is stretching the truth a little too far to try to make a point. It would be absurd to try to make the uninformed believe that.
I'm all for the bank policy, if you don't like it then keep your money at home under your mattress and let the thieves storm into your residence with guns blazing. Ohhh..and keep your hats and glasses on too.
Re: Absurd bank policy
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:26 pm
by Liberty
Lucky45 wrote:bluelineman wrote:I wear transition lenses in my glasses. They take a few minutes to go back to clear when coming inside. Would they make me wait until they were clear before I could come in?
C'mon now ??!!
I think that is stretching the truth a little too far to try to make a point. It would be absurd to try to make the uninformed believe that.
I'm all for the bank policy, if you don't like it then keep your money at home under your mattress and let the thieves storm into your residence with guns blazing. Ohhh..and keep your hats and glasses on too.
I'm a little confused. you don't believe transitional glasses get dark? or that they instantly lighten? My glasses stay pretty dark for about 15 minutes when comming in from the bright sun. Or that the Bank robbers will actually take their hats and sunglasses off to rob the bank?
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how these rules would prevent bank robberies .. If the criminals would actually obey the signs maybe the banks maybe we should just put up "Don't Rob Me" signs promising to prosecute the bad guys. How about a "No Guns Allowed" ? That should do it.