Wow...I thought that was common sense?

It sounds like the bank was BoA. Isn't there a lawsuit going on about that regarding that policy?

@Blaaaah: Yeah, This is very Dwight Schrute-y.

Yeah, I agree that going over your bosses heads to the execs is NEVER a good idea. It makes your superiors seem incompetent.

First of all, at least be aware of the code of ethics of your own employer. Chances are when you accepted employment, you signed a document that stated that you have read and understood said code.

Beyond that, I've got nothin'. This was just a huge lack of common sense.

Many large companies have a policy, in their employee guidelines or handbook, which states matters have to be escalated in the appropriate fashion starting at the local level.

The only time you can "skip a level" is an ethics or harassment complaint that is involving the local manager/HR or being ignored by the local manager/HR, in which case you skip to the next level to reach a neutral party. But never straight to the top. The proper order is usually:

- Local Manager/HR
- Regional Manager/HR
- East Coast/West Coast Manager/HR
- National Manager/HR

Also in the news: first pants THEN shoes.

I work for a big bank too and I had an issue with an ATM that took my check and shut down. I did a little research and was able to find the group that could help me out - the folks who run that business were extremely responsive and helpful. That is perhaps better than the EECB. You find the people who run that business but aren't the trained CSRs. If you work there they will bend backwards to help you. Use the admin assistant network too - the good ones know how to get things done.

This person could have a great resolution but it turned out quite the opposite to the point where it sounds like it was career-limiting move. Doubt it was worth $300.

Wow... just wow.

Easy solution:

Don't attempt to float checks. If it's not in your posted balance, don't spend it.

I really have no sympathy for this type of irresponsible behavior.

Personally, I think this would depend on the company and the information the OP included in their EECB. I *might* risk something like that if I worked for a huge corporation, and the people I carpet-bombed most likely wouldn't know that I was employee unless I told them. And I certainly would not tell them. Of course, it's entirely possible that a bank would flag employee accounts somehow, making the whole exercise pointless.

However, I do have to agree that following the chain of command was the first thing the OP should have done. I've never worked in a bank and don't know how likely it would've been to work, but it's always a good starting place.

Too bad you couldn't just reverse the fees yourself...

@NightSteel: "Too bad you couldn't just reverse the fees yourself..."

I think that's probably even more highly frowned upon.

Didn't this guy ever hear the old saying "Don't shit where you eat."?

Just so I have this straight. Is crapping on the CEO's desk until the issue's resolved still verbooten?

@Emperor_GitEmSteveDave:
Sometimes they are and they can't help you, but this seams like something you could be like hey manager chuck can you get these overdraft fees pulled for me. Banks have rules and all that jazz but you can have chuck move from there.

@NightSteel:
I dont know about other financial companies but in mine employee accounts are marked and worked on by a specific unit to protect privacy. We also signed an agreement though about expectations for our accounts and how overdrafts and other financial mishaps are not acceptable.

I work in IT and I have had users go over my head, my boss's, and his boss's, to the Director of IT himself, who reports only to God... I mean the CEO.

This usually happens because the user has persuaded himself that his issue, or the user himself, is too important to be dealt with by flunkies. Or, in some cases, the user himself is a lazy, stupid pain in the ass with a side order of entitlement (thank God we don't have very many of those).

Our IT Director seems to take great pleasure in referring the issue directly to the appropriate underling, with a gentle no-nonsense reminder to the user to deal with that person for those issues in the future

First, if you work at a bank, you are not supposed to have overdrafts. EVER. They look very negatively on their own employees not keeping their accounts in order.

That aside, isn't "don't go over your boss's head" as a rule of thumb kind of basic?

Wow. Just wow.

I'm hardly one to blame the OP but they should have seen this coming.

Customers are seen very differently than people from within the same company. Customers are seen as exasperated, tired, and in need of perhaps some basic help from a top person. Not to mention, the top person calling down to someone else to handle it doesn't piss that person off (and if it does, it's not like it matters, because they can't fire you).

Employees don't get the same luxury. You can't jump to the CEO because you look at best like a whiner and at worst like a chump. Not to mention that CEO you emailed may hand your issue down the chain (like he'd do for a customer) but the person he hands it to is probably very busy trying to save the bank (and your job), and would really prefer you take this to your manager.

Very very stupid move.

Don't poop where you eat.

Another point to consider: No EECBs if you are married to (or sleeping with) the CEO.

But isn't this person a CUSTOMER as well as an employee .Yes it was not the smartest move but a customer is a customer when it comes down to it .

In some respects going the route of a customer actually avoids the appearance of conflict of interest .What if the public found out that employees were being cut breaks that it took consumers lots and lots of phone calls & letter writing .

They sure didn't mind treating E. as a customer when they charged the 300$ in fees .

In the old days (not that long ago) an overdraft situation by a bank employee handling money or access to accounting information would be grounds for immediate termination. No warning, just fired.

OP still has a job, which means either the OP is not involved with accounts or money, or the banks have lighten up on their employee security policies.

I hope the banks have not changed their policies on security.

@nucwin83:
Yeah, like people really are looking for your sympathy. Considering you don't know the details of the situation, your charge of irresponsibility is the typical troll behavior that this site has been plagued with.

@Trai_Dep: Oh my, aren't we so clever.

Although in the current economic climate, big national banks don't care who they charge $40 (and then another $40 and another $40 before you get notification that the first overdraft occurred.) Bank employees are people too and sometimes stuff happens. The only other option is to leave an inordinate amount of money in an account bearing NO interest (and no, .025% APR does not count).
The Banks goal is to make money, and in the absence of everyone paying their mortgages and paying interest on their credit cards, mandatory fees are the last vestige.

@u1itn0w2day:
"In some respects going the route of a customer actually avoids the appearance of conflict of interest .What if the public found out that employees were being cut breaks that it took consumers lots and lots of phone calls & letter writing ."

Um, employees are almost always treated differently than customers at almost every job. It's a perk of working there. You're only supposed to EECB if you've tried to escalate and it didn't work.

You'd think you'd try the manager at your local branch if you were a customer, right? Well this guy was an employee that saw his manager every day at work, and he didn't ask him. So much for escalation or common sense.

@tankertodd: That first bit made me choke on my ginger ale.

@SGAC: Agreed. Sounds just like BofA talk.

/former BofA employee

If I worked for a bank, I would very certainly bank somewhere else - when you work for the wolf, don't let him guard your pay. You lose your normal rights as a consumer and this is the exact kind of mess you can expect to happen.

@Keter: You nailed it .If no other reason all of your eggs are not in one basket .

@blankhorizons: I understand that to a point .And yeah escalation would've been a safer bet .E apparently did try the customer service line .Wether a supervisor was asked for is unclear . But then again from E's point I guess he didn't want everyone knowing his business especially if worked where he banked - although they know it now .

Duh!

@NightSteel: I work for a bank and the other bankers always know my account is an employee's account, though we work in different departments.

I too would not bank where I work. Then again, I am not foolhardy enough to use a bank, I use a credit union.

Why the heck did you EECB from an account they could trace you from??? Der. You're one of those people they put on "America's Dumbest Criminals" on TV. Smarten up son! I appreciate that you took the effort to let them know how you feel though. Good try.

"E" must be - correction: IS - as thick as two short planks...

@Corporate-Shill: That's an assinine policy

@sumgai: Um, he wouldn't have to be tracable via his email - he asked them to look at an account from the same bank he worked at. Hell, maybe they were gonna fix it too and then found out who he was when they went to the manager to get it done.

Did you get the fee reversed?

@Blaaaah: Depends on where you work...our company, Continental, and many others have a "flat" hierarchy, where it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to talk to anyone. I believe Best Buy has a limited version of this as well..

This guy didn't think talking to his own manager was an option or a good idea? Give me a break

@sumgai: If they wanted the problem fixed, they'd have to provide account info. It's not like the CEO was going to leave the $300 under a bush in the park.

@u1itn0w2day: True, he is a customer too, but he probably has access to contact info that a typical customer may not have - internal email addresses, direct dial lines, admin identities, maybe even mobile numbers. And his problem is a CUSTOMER problem, not a CORPORATE (i.e., job related) problem that may justify skipping levels or bringing in an entire group of execs.

@deadspork: Unless you get special perks as an employee why should your account be classified any differently .

I've worked for a major corporation that had a credit card - which I didn't have .I recieved a computerized form letter from the ceo noting I didn't have one AS AN EMPLOYEE then saying I should get one .

It's one thing to do a credit check for a job applicant but to go dig and find which of employees has your credit card ???

Then there was a small disclaimer saying that I should contact the Direct Marketing Association and have my name removed from their list .But I thought I had did that YEARS ago .

There should be clear lines between an employee or customer .And those lines should not be fine print in one of the many papers employees and customers are swamped with .

One thing I'm wondering about is the relationship with their immediate supervisor .It might be non-existent which isn't surprising in the corporate world .

One might assume that the boss is a nine-fiver that doesn't want to be bothered .There are alot of managers that do not want problems nor can they handle problems .

I'd pull my money out of the bank and look for another job if possible. They've been asses to you as both employers and service providers.

@speedwell, avatar of snark:

You are lucky to have an IT director who does that. I work in IT, and have had situations where the user has gone so far over the heads of anyone that the person they go to doesn't know enough about the issue, and often makes us do things that are against policy, beyond the scope of what we support, or involve putting other users who should be helped first farther back, just to make the person happy.

And when that happens, of course the next time that user has a problem, they will go straight to the high level person, because it worked the last time.

@ComcastRedwoodFlyer: definitely common sense, or so i thought...
EECBs are supposed to be a last-ditch effort.
seeing as he worked for the company (bank of America, most likely), he has a few more channels that normal consumers don't have. first off, "premier clients" at BofA have a special customer service line (1.800.294.7999). there is probably another special line for employees, which he could find by searching the intranet. if both of those fail, he could have talked to his manager, or at least said "hey, boss, this is bullshit. i'm going to send an email about this"
also, i don't think i would have sent the EECB from my company email- not sure that this guy did, but the company email address throws up red flags to anyone reading it, but it wouldn't be immediately obvious he was an employee if he used a personal email account.

(if this actually isn't BofA, the same things still apply)

People who push such a fraudulent policy to get as much in overdraft fees as possible have NO right to talk about a "code of ethics".

Some people are saying, "Don't bank where you work.."

Well, I bank where I work because if I don't, the bank won't direct deposit my paycheck into another bank (which is becoming common practice). I can't afford to wait until saturday for my paycheck to arrive.

That being said, EECB'ing your own management is definitely not a good idea - hell, I don't even talk to my EVP except to say 'Hello". Perhaps instead of calling, the OP could have gone to a local branch and asked for help - usually a person in a branch will be more forgiving, especially if you're a fellow employee.

@Keter: Agreed. I worked for an investment company/bank briefly, and I had the option to move my money over. But what you said was exactly my fear-- I'd lose my financial privacy, they'd have access to my pay, and it might be that much harder to get mistakes fixed.