| Title: | DCU |
| Notice: | 1996 BoD Election results in 1004 |
| Moderator: | CPEEDY::BRADLEY |
| Created: | Sat Feb 07 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1041 |
| Total number of notes: | 18759 |
This may mostly be a field problem, but I don't want to exclude those people up North. I have for some time watched the rising costs which are being charged to the field. The most obvious is the rising ATM fee. This originally started out at $.25 and has risen to $.75 (last time I used it). A thought then occurred to me the other day. Is the credit union allocating the same level of money to support the field as it does to support the corporate operations? This means if they are using $1,000.00 to operate DCU walk-in operations in plants are they allocating the same amount to people who can only use ATM machines? I am not speaking about the base staff which is necessary to run the DCU, only those people and floor space which allow some corporate locations to have real tellers for example. Since the DCU does use computers, it should be able to differentiate between employees at DCU locations and those in the field. The ATM fee should be based on whether you have direct access to DCU not on whether you don't. This also goes down to other minor items like banking by mail. I sometimes receive checks and since I only have a DCU account and I want to deposit the checks into my account, I have to pay the postage to get them deposited. A minor annoyance, but it does favor DCU corporate locations over field locations. Why don't bank by mail operations have a business reply printed on them. I in general have gotten good support from DCU, but I sometimes get the "feeling" that we in the field are merely a cheap source of deposits.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.1 | Life can't be perfectly fair | GATORS::VICKERS | What is our goal? | Fri Jan 06 1978 16:35 | 15 |
Clearly, the DCU doesn't provide the same level of service to those
of us away from the branch offices. I certainly don't see the cost
of ATM transactions as any big deal nor do I see that it makes much
sense for their to be a two tiered cost associated with them.
There are far worst effects to not have a branch. Getting a loan
is extremely painful and slow out here in the 'real' world. Almost
all the transactions are a pain. What I'd rather see would be more
emphasis on service overall.
This is just another one of those things that makes the field more
painful than non-field. The field is still far more fun because
we get to see real customers.
Don
| |||||
| 33.2 | Bank-by-Mail | MTADMS::JOHNSON | Rob -- Ski COLORADO! It's AWESOME! | Wed Feb 15 1989 13:42 | 22 |
Re: -1
I think someone's date was a 'little' off.
I have worked in the banking industry for several years and there is
'no' excuse for a bank 'not' to have a self-addressed, self-stamped
envelope for their customers to 'bank-by-mail'. There is a cost to
the financial institution for this service, but the 'real-life'
savings are felt by not having to hire another teller for the line
to handle the customers coming in the door. If a bank can't afford
the postage to do business with me, I can't afford the postage to
put my money in their institution and there will always be those
competitors around who will accept that minimal cost. That's also
the reason why I 'refuse' to do business with a bank that will
charge me for the cost of using an ATM, regardless if it is their's
or one halfway around the world. I think they would much rather I
get my balance or withdraw funds from a local ATM than make a trip
into the bank and increase their work load. Their 'real-time' cost
for a teller is much more than the cost of my doing business with
a machine.
-- Rob
| |||||