New ATMs better only for banks
- |
I have to take issue with the story about the new check-scanning ATMs promising “consumer convenience’’ (“Losing the envelope,’’ June 28). All that they are promising is to help the banks’ bottom line, in that an employee somewhere no longer has to scan depositors’ checks after they are deposited - so that employee can be let go.
From this consumer’s point of view, they are a nightmare. As a small-business owner, I typically deposit multiple checks and cash each time I visit an ATM. The time I now have to spend on each visit, inserting and confirming each check individually, has skyrocketed - not to mention the scanning mistakes I have to be vigilant about, the checks that refuse to scan at all, and the currency that is randomly rejected. The claim that deposits are available “the same day’’ is hardly worth the hassle, since deposited funds can’t be used until a check clears anyway, which takes several days regardless of how it’s deposited.
These machines, like the charges for money orders, overdrafts, and foreign transactions that have increased exponentially in recent years, are just a way for the banks to make more money at the expense of their customers.
Paul Lehrman
Medford
I am a longtime customer of Bank of America, maintaining three business accounts with the bank, and my family and I together maintain eight personal accounts.
I have used the machines many times now, and can honestly say that my deposits take at least five times as long with these new machines. In short, that fancy check-scanning technology built into new ATM makes the process painfully and unacceptably slow.
Moreover, the technology doesn’t even work that well; it can’t auto-read the amounts on many of the checks, so I need to enter those figures manually.
This new machine design favors Bank of America’s continuing efforts to cut its costs - but at the expense of its customers. I strongly encourage you to write a follow up story that gauges the reaction of Bank of America’s customers to this great leap . . . backward.
Paul Baudisch
Wellesley
One reason is because of the high professional standards I have seen demonstrated in the staff, most notably in Dr. Michael Ellenbecker with whom I have worked personally.
But my regret is mostly because of the institute’s excellent efforts in nanotechnology.
As someone with a relatively broad and long background in this field, I know TURI’s work in the environmental, health, and safety concerns of nanotech is amongst the most advanced anywhere.
Massachusetts has many nanotech firms that need the services of an organization like TURI to develop their products responsibly.
The relatively small investment in TURI will doubtlessly provide such companies, which often cannot afford or obtain such resources or knowledge otherwise, with key competitive advantages enabling them to provide jobs in this advanced technology locally.
It would also sustain and build the region’s recognized leadership in this industry.
Mark A. Banash, PhD
Bedford, N.H.
On axing the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos says, “given the fiscal realities we’re facing, it’s the best we could do.’’
If the best the senator can do to resolve a $3 billion deficit is to kill a $1.3 million program that profits more than it costs, I imagine many of his colleagues may wish he clarified who “we’’ includes or at least used a calculator. This might be the first time any state cut a profitable agency to “save money.’’
While TURI scientists might lack fierce lobbyists, their work makes this state a safer place to live and work in. Because a similar shortsightedness led to higher education cuts during prosperous years, UMass-Lowell can’t afford the lab. Panagiotakos should know, he voted for the cuts. Now, the senator wants the school to pick up the check.
Cutting the lab now risks far more millions in toxic waste cleanup costs later, and will cost the state in lost profits. When taxpayers shell out tens of millions of dollars to the next toxic cleanup, what good will Senator Panagiotakos’s best efforts be then?
T.F. O’Neill
Boston
HAVE AN OPINION? Letters intended for publication should include the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing. E-mail letters to business@globe.com; fax to 617-929-3183; or mail to Business Letters, The Boston Globe, P.O. Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819.
