Those were the days:

A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.

For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.

Devonte Yates, 21, who earns $7.25 an hour working a drive-through station at a McDonald’s in Milwaukee, says he spends $40 to $50 a month on fees associated with his JPMorgan Chase payroll card.

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

At companies where there is a choice, it is often more in theory than in practice, according to interviews with employees, state regulators and consumer advocates. Employees say they are often automatically enrolled in the payroll card programs and confronted with a pile of paperwork if they want to opt out.

“We hear virtually every week from employees who never knew there were other options, and employers certainly don’t disabuse workers of that idea,” said Deyanira Del Rio, an associate director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which works with community groups in New York.

• Help employees find credit unions where there is direct deposit and free checking. 
• Offer financial literacy classes to employees

Laurie Ruettimann and I love Human Resources in very different ways.  She is a consultant and disaffected practitioner.  I am a professor.  We have very different  messages for our chosen profession.

Southern California real estate agents recruiters are using reconnaissance and back-channel networks to find houses applicants that haven't yet hit the market. Some even offer bizarre gifts.
Southern California housing prices employee salaries are rising sharply, and there's a shortage of houses available for sale skilled employees available.
So agents recruiters like Mathys are resorting to reconnaissance and back-channel networks to find homes applicants that haven't yet hit the market. They're cold-calling homeowners passive applicants with offers and targeting specific neighborhoods employers with direct mail. Some come bearing bizarre gifts in return for a listing referral. One agent offered a seller potential employee the use of his exotic car; one of his clients offered free dogs.
And they're chasing so-called pocket listings, homes an applicant database privately marketed among those in the know. The low-profile nature of the listings makes them hard to quantify. But agents recruiters and other real estate hiring experts say they've become common in the booming Southland market, where the median home price salary shot up nearly 25% in the last year.

What would happen if HR truly operated in a truly capitalistic society where everyone is a rational actor?

In such a world, there would be a plethora of choices and perfect information about which choice to make.  Needs would be addressed quickly as businesses operate to fill that vacuum at maximum profitability.  Employees will find those organizations which put together the optimal compensation package with the appropriate work/life balance.  On the other side, companies will try to maximize employment with the best combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities at the lowest wages they can.  Equilibrium will always be reached where supply meets demand.  Consumers, companies and workers will choose the option that is most appropriate to their lifestyle.  Government will not interfere and "distort" the playing field.

What would this mean for HR?

• Would nepotism disappear as it would be viewed as an inefficient way to find talent, or is it, on certain occasions, a politically expedient choice?
• Would all salaries become public knowledge, as pay secrecy leads to imperfect information
• Would negotiation and pay unfairness become a thing of the past as all parties enter the contract with perfect information?
• Would there be a need for training as firms would only hire those who had the proper qualifications and skills to do the job correctly?
• Would there be a need for safety committees or OSHA, as taking shortcuts, in the long run, would be inefficient?
• Would wellness initiatives disappear, as employees make the right choice in diet and exercise?
• Would performance appraisals be done frequently to address any problems that arise, instead of waiting to be done annually?