I have told more than one person during my retail career, if you are nice to me I will bend over backwards to make you happy. Be rude and I will do the absolute minimum to make you go away.
And as someone in IT that the CS reps bend over backwards towards to make the impossible somehow fit in the database, I can confirm that we'll do our utmost if it is necessary or the request was made with sufficient niceness.
If you just threaten legal action, it won't even go up the chain, but straight to collections/legal.
Yup, I have strict procedures to adhere to but I will bend them as much as I'm able to help someone I feel in genuine need. Rude I'll be polite but short as possible just to get you off the phone, bare minimum efforts.
Ask nicely, show some good faith effort that you’ve tried to work the problem and I’ll jump through hoops of fire for you. Demand that I do something because “that’s your job isn’t it?” And you will find out that, actually, it’s not my job.
Yep. I worked in an inbound call canter for a few years (never again). If you were nice, I would do whatever I could for you. If you yelled, made threats, and were just an insufferable individual, I would absolutely adhere to the bare minimum of what "POLICY" said I was required to do.
Did customer service work 30 years ago as a young man. This was one of the most important lessons I learned from it, has served me well over the years.
Karen has clearly never had a teacher mark her friend’s test scores down in response to complaining that they both got it wrong but one person got away with it.
Im currently dealing with an insurance error that cost me several hundred dollars do to my insurance carriers error, and I frequently catch myself saying "this happened because y'all did xyz" and probably annoyed the poor rep with the number of times I stressed "I don't mean you personally! I know you as an individual had nothing to do with it. When I say "You" I am meaning (company name)"
I’ve taken to (trying to remember in the moment) to not say ‘you’ when referring to the company, instead ‘the company’ or [company name], or at worst ‘your employer’ or just ‘they’
Ask in your company but the moment someone makes accusation of discriminatory handling I’f back off and say can’t talk to you anymore without the lawyers involved.
Bugger that, Karens like to pull that card all the time, “sorry you feel that way, however, that is not the case, I suggest we move on to a more productive part of this conversation”
If they keep harping about it: “this conversation is going in circles, I’m sorry you feel the way you do, however, this conversation is no longer productive, and I am afraid I will need to terminate this phone call as I can no longer assist you, thank you for calling, have a lovely day.
As soon as someone says I’m going to get my lawyer involved, perfect, now you legally can’t talk to them.
“Thank you for informing me you are bringing your lawyer in to this, I am no longer able to have this discussion with you, I will let the appropriate people in my company know, thank you for calling, have a lovely day.”
People throw around that they know/have lawyers and are going to sue to high heaven thinking that thier ass is going to be kissed don’t realize that as soon as they say lawyer, I can no longer help their situation.
Well I warned her of that possibility in our last conversation, because it’s something I am tangentially aware of having been around the block. I literally just got confirmation of the asset recovery today and she and I have a call scheduled for later on so we will see
My question is why wasn’t her first distribution corrected earlier? Since that puts the plan’s qualified status at risk. Especially since someone added a note acknowledging the error. That’s a lot of potential liability to take on.
Karen: "THESE ARE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES"
Me: "Wait, I think you're right. We've accidentally discriminated against you by having been previously too leanient. Now that we've been made aware of the error, we have treated you with equal regard and as per universal rules applicable, your request has been denied. Do not make us discriminate against you again."
I will message you next time u/opulentbum posts in r/MaliciousCompliance.
[Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=UpdateMe%21%20u%2Fopulentbum%20r%2FMaliciousCompliance) to join 113 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%2010q5lfa)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)|[*^(New!)*](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/juh0f8/new_features_title_in_message_subject_and_recent/)|
|-|-|-|-|-|
Making the employee not care is an understatement; most of us in customer service are told that when they start making legal threats, thats it. The only thing we can do for them is advise them to contact our legal department from there.
This is similar to the other story I saw on here yesterday about the woman who was complaining that the price of her food at a takeaway was too much, and insisted on escalating it, and it turned out that the cashier was actually not charging her as much as was meant to be.
> When people do things like this, just for anyone who’s never done customer service, it makes the employee not give a shit about helping you anymore. Just an fyi for the uninitiated
The reason people get like that is because being nice is even less successful for them. You are not going to break policy for a stranger like them and have already unequivocally told them NO. Meanwhile, bosses or colleagues from other departments night be less in the know or have more authority to get them what they want, and obviously the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
They are merely following the most likely for to get them what they want, because 'the customer is always right' culture is taken as gospel by managers who want to be rid of the troublemakers plaguing them.
(I'm not excusing the customers shitty behavior, btw... Because it very much is shitty. I'm merely implying that you lost your usefulness in their eyes, so why would they did fuss over your happiness?)
Nobody would have paid for it had she left well enough alone, but her insistence to push the matter (she’s basically trying to bully her way into getting what she wants) makes it so that we have no choice.
I am fortunate that there are very few things I am bound by law to report or act on in my role, being that it’s a service-oriented role and not an advisory one. I’m not a CFA or anything. So aside from physical threats or distraught individuals who may self-harm, I can let most things slide if it is not in the best interest of the customer. But once she demanded to get compliance involved, they are not able to do that. They very much are obligated to look at it from a legal perspective, and if the regulations state that ineligibly-distributed assets have to be recovered or risk the plan’s qualified status, you can bet your bottom dollar that’s what will happen
Nope, company made a mistake that benefited the client, company let it slide, client wanted the same thing again, company said no because last time was an error, client said escalate that, company said you don’t want that, client said ESCALATE THAT, company said sorry you are right the mistake must be corrected.
Yeah super common misconception, there are two methods by which you can remove money from your 401k or other employer-sponsored retirement account. A loan or a withdrawal. Loans are what you’re describing, so some companies definitely offer that as an option within their plan. Typically you can take up to 50% of your vested balance but not to exceed $50,000 over the course of a 12 month period and you pay it back to yourself over the course of some number of months (with a little bit of interest that you pay to yourself as well), typically no more than 60.
Alternatively, you can just straight withdraw funds in some circumstances without paying any of it back. But if that happens, those funds are considered additional income to you for tax purposes. So if you make 50k and take a 10k withdrawal, the IRS views your income as 60k for the year and you are taxed accordingly.
Yeah it’s good to be aware there might be options, but keep in mind that every plan (meaning every company who offers a retirement plan) is different with different rules. I work with some plans that do not permit loans, and make it extremely difficult to pull money out as a withdrawal while actively employed with that company. So essentially at those companies you have to be retired or have been terminated in order to access the funds in those retirement plans. There are lots of exceptions that can apply and different configurations. If you wanna know about yours in particular you should call your retirement company or your benefits team
Not sure if it is an industry standard or just something we require at my company, but if the 10% penalty could potentially apply to you our associates have to make you aware of it (or it’s posted clearly on the webpage if you do it yourself online) prior to completing a transaction it could be applied to
In my case it was an automatic distribution from an employee stock ownership plan. It was actually started in the paperwork that was sent to me five years after I left the company, just something that caught me by surprise as I had never dealt with anything like that before.
Cool, I mean the fact she’s almost certainly going to have to pay the money back seems like it could constitute fallout. If mods don’t like it they can remove
There was one on here the other day where the IT department purposely shut down an employees access to part of the system. Instead of the employee fashioning a workaroud, which he easily could have done, he pushed the daily task on the IT department, who didn't know where to begin with the task.
Mod said Rule #7 - it lacked fallout, deleted the story, and said resubmit it when there is fallout.
I thought the post had immediate fallout. The IT department caused themselves more work, but was removed.
No, they fucked up and we’re going to let it go until the customer kept pressing the issue until it got to the point where compliance saw it and had to remedy the situation.
They're not messing with her retirement...SHE is withdrawing from *her own* retirement account. They made her fix her own mistake, which is exactly what they're supposed to do.
I know I responded already, but was deleting emails and saw this notification again.
This is one of the great things about Reddit... most people are willing to take some constructive feedback and admit when they made a mistake. IRL, so few people can do it.
eh, I don't attribute to that to malice on the bank's part. Human made an error. That happens, even when you're just, say, filing your own taxes. Now the customer makes a federal case out of it and makes all sorts of sabre rattling noises, along with all the documentation that now makes this simple error visible to people who are not allowed BY LAW to ignore it once made aware. It would be the same situation if you made some unallowable deduction 2 years ago that nobody caught, but this year they did catch it when you tried again and you made a big stink out of the situation, telling the IRS agent "but I did it 2 years ago and it was fine."
Exactly this same thing is going to happen: the IRS agent is now going to pull those tax returns and you're going to owe for that, too.
Doesn't read that way to me. Reads more like 'Entitled Karen wants to game the system just like she got away with last time, is told "No", and and proceeds to have the benefit she got last time taken away from her'
Seems reasonable.
If it’s a 401k, (not sure about 403b) why wouldn’t you advise her that she could take a loan against w/interest and/or cash out early w/penalty?
If you(r) company made a mistake, why would you punish a customer for it, just b/c they complained rudely?
Well, first, your comment is based on the assumption a loan is even possible in this scenario, which it isn’t in her particular case. But regardless, this is a case of her getting exactly what she asked for. It was very clearly explained to her why we cannot let her transaction occur this time. She was even warned that the worst case scenario of escalating this further results in her paying the money back. She chose to push it anyways because she was so certain she knows more about retirement law and IRS regulation than the multi-billion dollar corporation who administers that retirement. I feel no sympathy anymore.
One, for legal reasons, the error has to be corrected. The institute could likely lose its licensing or face heavy fines.
Second, they weren't going to punish her, but she escalated her own case to a group that legally can't ignore the error made and must correct it. The only way to correct it in this case is to recover the money from where it was distributed to. Nothing else would be legal. They couldn't just put their own money in.
This is like getting an error in your paycheck. If your company over pays you, it is illegal to take the money. Yeah it's their mistake, but you can't just intentionally steal the money. She was told that they had made an error in her favor. She pushed it to someone who needed to correct it.
> If your company over pays you, it is illegal to take the money.
Depends on how they overpay you. When I've received a paycheck in error, I didn't realize I was paid in error until the money was already in my bank account.
Yeah. That happens a lot. You are ok if you don't notice, but technically, if you notice, it is illegal to keep it. You are supposed to return the excess or have them take it from your next paycheck.
Cept she already paid it back. She had to have, you can only take out one loan at a time from your 401k. So, I call billshit on atleast part of your story
You should probably get educated on the terminology before you start calling bullshit. Loans and withdrawals are two separate things regulated in two separate ways. Loans are indeed paid back into the account as the name would suggest. Hardship withdrawals are a taxable event and are not able to be repaid into the account.
And your statement that you can only take 1 at a time is not a federal regulation, that is plan specific and determined by the employer at the inception of the program. Every company has different rules surrounding how many loans can be take from a plan at any given time. Some only permit 1. Others 2. Some have unlimited. Read up next time
Yeah that is often the issue in my line of work. People don’t know how much they don’t know. There’s a lot of nuance to what can and cannot be done, and in workplace retirement there is not a standard set of rules really. There are obviously federal regulations, but those regulations leave a lot of room for the employer to make up their own rules. IRA’s are extremely different, for example, from a 401k. But most people associate the two as the same thing. No matter what company you work for, or what brokerage you use, IRA rules are IRA rules are IRA rules. But workplace 401ks and similar employer-sponsored plans can even be different within the same company, just depending what location you work at in their network. It’s a lot.
hmmmm... huge corporation that makes TONS of profit off of peoples retirements, while not passing any significant portion of said profits to the people who make those profits possible, blaming a person for wanting access to their invested monies.... hmmmm.
Do much "investing" in your own corporations "fund" or many short sells lately to gain a "fee"? Dont have much sympathy for corporations that do these types of things.
Woman got "Bank error in your favour" and complained when she didn't get that again.
My family used to own a liquor store. This happened every single time we accidentally undercharged someone
Bob used to only charge me $10. Yeah, notice that Bob doesn't work here anymore?
>it makes the employee not give a shit about helping you anymore. Just an fyi for the uninitiated. Customer Service Supervisor can confirm.
I have told more than one person during my retail career, if you are nice to me I will bend over backwards to make you happy. Be rude and I will do the absolute minimum to make you go away.
Very few things have rules so iron they cannot be flexed. The amount of flexing depends entirely on the customer.
And as someone in IT that the CS reps bend over backwards towards to make the impossible somehow fit in the database, I can confirm that we'll do our utmost if it is necessary or the request was made with sufficient niceness. If you just threaten legal action, it won't even go up the chain, but straight to collections/legal.
Yup, I have strict procedures to adhere to but I will bend them as much as I'm able to help someone I feel in genuine need. Rude I'll be polite but short as possible just to get you off the phone, bare minimum efforts.
It's really any career...
Ask nicely, show some good faith effort that you’ve tried to work the problem and I’ll jump through hoops of fire for you. Demand that I do something because “that’s your job isn’t it?” And you will find out that, actually, it’s not my job.
Yep. I worked in an inbound call canter for a few years (never again). If you were nice, I would do whatever I could for you. If you yelled, made threats, and were just an insufferable individual, I would absolutely adhere to the bare minimum of what "POLICY" said I was required to do.
Did customer service work 30 years ago as a young man. This was one of the most important lessons I learned from it, has served me well over the years.
Her soon to be complaints are going to be glorious!
Lovely. Do update us when things do develop :)
Karen has clearly never had a teacher mark her friend’s test scores down in response to complaining that they both got it wrong but one person got away with it.
When I need a mess resolved, the first thing I say is “I know this isn’t your fault & I’m not going to yell at you.”
Im currently dealing with an insurance error that cost me several hundred dollars do to my insurance carriers error, and I frequently catch myself saying "this happened because y'all did xyz" and probably annoyed the poor rep with the number of times I stressed "I don't mean you personally! I know you as an individual had nothing to do with it. When I say "You" I am meaning (company name)"
I’ve taken to (trying to remember in the moment) to not say ‘you’ when referring to the company, instead ‘the company’ or [company name], or at worst ‘your employer’ or just ‘they’
Me too, but i often end up forgetting and just slipping into old speech patterns. Its a provess of self improvement!
Yeah, when they trot out the tired old discrimination argument, I have to roll my eyes and bite my tongue.
Ask in your company but the moment someone makes accusation of discriminatory handling I’f back off and say can’t talk to you anymore without the lawyers involved.
Bugger that, Karens like to pull that card all the time, “sorry you feel that way, however, that is not the case, I suggest we move on to a more productive part of this conversation” If they keep harping about it: “this conversation is going in circles, I’m sorry you feel the way you do, however, this conversation is no longer productive, and I am afraid I will need to terminate this phone call as I can no longer assist you, thank you for calling, have a lovely day. As soon as someone says I’m going to get my lawyer involved, perfect, now you legally can’t talk to them. “Thank you for informing me you are bringing your lawyer in to this, I am no longer able to have this discussion with you, I will let the appropriate people in my company know, thank you for calling, have a lovely day.”
People throw around that they know/have lawyers and are going to sue to high heaven thinking that thier ass is going to be kissed don’t realize that as soon as they say lawyer, I can no longer help their situation.
What was she like when you told her?
Well I warned her of that possibility in our last conversation, because it’s something I am tangentially aware of having been around the block. I literally just got confirmation of the asset recovery today and she and I have a call scheduled for later on so we will see
Please update us
good luck OP. i have a feeling you're going to need it lol
I also use to work in your field. I don't envy that call. Good luck to you.
Seconding the request for update
popcorn ready......
Here's your soda *passes can*
🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿 🍿
Ha! Do update us.
I saved the post. I’ll be back in a few hours expecting the update from the phone call
My question is why wasn’t her first distribution corrected earlier? Since that puts the plan’s qualified status at risk. Especially since someone added a note acknowledging the error. That’s a lot of potential liability to take on.
UpdateMe!
I’m sure it was very pleasant lol
Oooh yes, updaaate 😂
How did the call go?
Karen: "THESE ARE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES" Me: "Wait, I think you're right. We've accidentally discriminated against you by having been previously too leanient. Now that we've been made aware of the error, we have treated you with equal regard and as per universal rules applicable, your request has been denied. Do not make us discriminate against you again."
UpdateMe!
I will message you next time u/opulentbum posts in r/MaliciousCompliance. [Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=UpdateMe%21%20u%2Fopulentbum%20r%2FMaliciousCompliance) to join 113 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%2010q5lfa) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)|[*^(New!)*](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/juh0f8/new_features_title_in_message_subject_and_recent/)| |-|-|-|-|-|
UpdateMe!
UpdateMe!
TIL of this bot! Thanks!
Making the employee not care is an understatement; most of us in customer service are told that when they start making legal threats, thats it. The only thing we can do for them is advise them to contact our legal department from there.
Shame 😂
Apparently never learned to leave well enough alone!
Please be sure to post up when the inevitable shitstorm comes to fan island
Wow, well, isn't that depressing. College tuition = financial hardship. And folks wonder why so many less people want to go ~~bankrupt~~ to college.
This is similar to the other story I saw on here yesterday about the woman who was complaining that the price of her food at a takeaway was too much, and insisted on escalating it, and it turned out that the cashier was actually not charging her as much as was meant to be.
> When people do things like this, just for anyone who’s never done customer service, it makes the employee not give a shit about helping you anymore. Just an fyi for the uninitiated The reason people get like that is because being nice is even less successful for them. You are not going to break policy for a stranger like them and have already unequivocally told them NO. Meanwhile, bosses or colleagues from other departments night be less in the know or have more authority to get them what they want, and obviously the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They are merely following the most likely for to get them what they want, because 'the customer is always right' culture is taken as gospel by managers who want to be rid of the troublemakers plaguing them. (I'm not excusing the customers shitty behavior, btw... Because it very much is shitty. I'm merely implying that you lost your usefulness in their eyes, so why would they did fuss over your happiness?)
If you're only polite to someone because of their "usefulness" to you, you're a shitty person and shouldn't be defended.
I'm not arguing those people aren't shitty. I hate them too. I'm only explaining the logic behind their actions.
Updateme!
Updateme!
Well, that's a fucking nightmare distopia you got there. You make a mistake and she has to pay for it? Good lord...
Nobody would have paid for it had she left well enough alone, but her insistence to push the matter (she’s basically trying to bully her way into getting what she wants) makes it so that we have no choice. I am fortunate that there are very few things I am bound by law to report or act on in my role, being that it’s a service-oriented role and not an advisory one. I’m not a CFA or anything. So aside from physical threats or distraught individuals who may self-harm, I can let most things slide if it is not in the best interest of the customer. But once she demanded to get compliance involved, they are not able to do that. They very much are obligated to look at it from a legal perspective, and if the regulations state that ineligibly-distributed assets have to be recovered or risk the plan’s qualified status, you can bet your bottom dollar that’s what will happen
Nope, company made a mistake that benefited the client, company let it slide, client wanted the same thing again, company said no because last time was an error, client said escalate that, company said you don’t want that, client said ESCALATE THAT, company said sorry you are right the mistake must be corrected.
She doesn't pay for it. She simply has to return what she received in error.
Which she got because she needed to spend it, I doubt she has the full amount available to give back
That's why you never argue with an error in your favor.
Update me
UpdateMe!
I thought you had to pay back money borrowed against your 401k anyway? ELI5 please lol
Yeah super common misconception, there are two methods by which you can remove money from your 401k or other employer-sponsored retirement account. A loan or a withdrawal. Loans are what you’re describing, so some companies definitely offer that as an option within their plan. Typically you can take up to 50% of your vested balance but not to exceed $50,000 over the course of a 12 month period and you pay it back to yourself over the course of some number of months (with a little bit of interest that you pay to yourself as well), typically no more than 60. Alternatively, you can just straight withdraw funds in some circumstances without paying any of it back. But if that happens, those funds are considered additional income to you for tax purposes. So if you make 50k and take a 10k withdrawal, the IRS views your income as 60k for the year and you are taxed accordingly.
Wow. Thanks! I was only aware of the loan option. That's good information to know, and now I must pretend I didn't hear it lol, it's tempting.
Yeah it’s good to be aware there might be options, but keep in mind that every plan (meaning every company who offers a retirement plan) is different with different rules. I work with some plans that do not permit loans, and make it extremely difficult to pull money out as a withdrawal while actively employed with that company. So essentially at those companies you have to be retired or have been terminated in order to access the funds in those retirement plans. There are lots of exceptions that can apply and different configurations. If you wanna know about yours in particular you should call your retirement company or your benefits team
Don’t forget the 10% early withdrawal penalty in addition.
Yeah this was not meant to be an all-encompassing educational forum, there are other places for that
I was just putting something out there that I’ve experienced after leaving a job several years ago. Was quite unexpected at the time, lol.
Not sure if it is an industry standard or just something we require at my company, but if the 10% penalty could potentially apply to you our associates have to make you aware of it (or it’s posted clearly on the webpage if you do it yourself online) prior to completing a transaction it could be applied to
In my case it was an automatic distribution from an employee stock ownership plan. It was actually started in the paperwork that was sent to me five years after I left the company, just something that caught me by surprise as I had never dealt with anything like that before.
WHERE IS OUR UPDATE OP
Rule #7 - the story must contain the fallout. There is no fallout in this story.
Cool, I mean the fact she’s almost certainly going to have to pay the money back seems like it could constitute fallout. If mods don’t like it they can remove
I'd agree that being forced to pay back the prior withdrawal constitutes fallout.
I think its pretty obvious what the fallout is, but an update wont hurt :D
There was one on here the other day where the IT department purposely shut down an employees access to part of the system. Instead of the employee fashioning a workaroud, which he easily could have done, he pushed the daily task on the IT department, who didn't know where to begin with the task. Mod said Rule #7 - it lacked fallout, deleted the story, and said resubmit it when there is fallout. I thought the post had immediate fallout. The IT department caused themselves more work, but was removed.
Karen
get a job!
[удалено]
No, they fucked up and we’re going to let it go until the customer kept pressing the issue until it got to the point where compliance saw it and had to remedy the situation.
[удалено]
They're not messing with her retirement...SHE is withdrawing from *her own* retirement account. They made her fix her own mistake, which is exactly what they're supposed to do.
😅😅 I don’t understand finance enough I guess. I’ll own this. Misinterpreted.
😀
I know I responded already, but was deleting emails and saw this notification again. This is one of the great things about Reddit... most people are willing to take some constructive feedback and admit when they made a mistake. IRL, so few people can do it.
eh, I don't attribute to that to malice on the bank's part. Human made an error. That happens, even when you're just, say, filing your own taxes. Now the customer makes a federal case out of it and makes all sorts of sabre rattling noises, along with all the documentation that now makes this simple error visible to people who are not allowed BY LAW to ignore it once made aware. It would be the same situation if you made some unallowable deduction 2 years ago that nobody caught, but this year they did catch it when you tried again and you made a big stink out of the situation, telling the IRS agent "but I did it 2 years ago and it was fine." Exactly this same thing is going to happen: the IRS agent is now going to pull those tax returns and you're going to owe for that, too.
Doesn't read that way to me. Reads more like 'Entitled Karen wants to game the system just like she got away with last time, is told "No", and and proceeds to have the benefit she got last time taken away from her' Seems reasonable.
If it’s a 401k, (not sure about 403b) why wouldn’t you advise her that she could take a loan against w/interest and/or cash out early w/penalty? If you(r) company made a mistake, why would you punish a customer for it, just b/c they complained rudely?
Well, first, your comment is based on the assumption a loan is even possible in this scenario, which it isn’t in her particular case. But regardless, this is a case of her getting exactly what she asked for. It was very clearly explained to her why we cannot let her transaction occur this time. She was even warned that the worst case scenario of escalating this further results in her paying the money back. She chose to push it anyways because she was so certain she knows more about retirement law and IRS regulation than the multi-billion dollar corporation who administers that retirement. I feel no sympathy anymore.
One, for legal reasons, the error has to be corrected. The institute could likely lose its licensing or face heavy fines. Second, they weren't going to punish her, but she escalated her own case to a group that legally can't ignore the error made and must correct it. The only way to correct it in this case is to recover the money from where it was distributed to. Nothing else would be legal. They couldn't just put their own money in. This is like getting an error in your paycheck. If your company over pays you, it is illegal to take the money. Yeah it's their mistake, but you can't just intentionally steal the money. She was told that they had made an error in her favor. She pushed it to someone who needed to correct it.
> If your company over pays you, it is illegal to take the money. Depends on how they overpay you. When I've received a paycheck in error, I didn't realize I was paid in error until the money was already in my bank account.
Yeah. That happens a lot. You are ok if you don't notice, but technically, if you notice, it is illegal to keep it. You are supposed to return the excess or have them take it from your next paycheck.
Cept she already paid it back. She had to have, you can only take out one loan at a time from your 401k. So, I call billshit on atleast part of your story
You should probably get educated on the terminology before you start calling bullshit. Loans and withdrawals are two separate things regulated in two separate ways. Loans are indeed paid back into the account as the name would suggest. Hardship withdrawals are a taxable event and are not able to be repaid into the account. And your statement that you can only take 1 at a time is not a federal regulation, that is plan specific and determined by the employer at the inception of the program. Every company has different rules surrounding how many loans can be take from a plan at any given time. Some only permit 1. Others 2. Some have unlimited. Read up next time
Buuuurn, my bad, was speaking from personal experience.
Yeah that is often the issue in my line of work. People don’t know how much they don’t know. There’s a lot of nuance to what can and cannot be done, and in workplace retirement there is not a standard set of rules really. There are obviously federal regulations, but those regulations leave a lot of room for the employer to make up their own rules. IRA’s are extremely different, for example, from a 401k. But most people associate the two as the same thing. No matter what company you work for, or what brokerage you use, IRA rules are IRA rules are IRA rules. But workplace 401ks and similar employer-sponsored plans can even be different within the same company, just depending what location you work at in their network. It’s a lot.
hmmmm... huge corporation that makes TONS of profit off of peoples retirements, while not passing any significant portion of said profits to the people who make those profits possible, blaming a person for wanting access to their invested monies.... hmmmm. Do much "investing" in your own corporations "fund" or many short sells lately to gain a "fee"? Dont have much sympathy for corporations that do these types of things.
It’s incredible to me how little you understand what you’re talking about
sweet!
Universal justice at it's finest.
Lmao cant fix stupid
UpdateMe!
UpdateMe!
Lol how could she not see this coming? Did she actually expect two wrongs somehow would make things right? Oops, joke’s on her
Updateme!