Garnishment - no, not parsley

Garnishment is the only area of collections I have any qualms about at this point. I have two specific qualms about it - one the nature of the act, the second being reactions from other collectors and my own.

When I once told someone they were facing a wage garnishment for non-payment of their student loans, they told me quite dramatically, "YOU can't garnish me! YOU must first get a judgement! And I have not been served with one! So THERE!" *CLICK*

This statement is true for almost all debts - a judgement in a court of law must be issued in order for a garnishment to take place. There are three exceptions to this rule, and in pecking order of importance: Back Child Support, IRS taxes owed, and....

Yep - student loans. Legislation signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Not dismissed by bankruptcy, and collection abilities on par with (but behind in pecking order to) IRS taxes owed.

The guidelines for garnishment vary depending on who the loan originated from, and I think my particular line has the most stringent requirements in the office. First, we need to verify by SSN that a person has worked at the place of employment for over a year. Then, verify they make more than full-time equivalent minimum wage per week. Then make sure they are not in a legally protected class of workers from a set list. And that is part one.

Part two is a follow-up phone call to find out where the order of wage garnishment should be sent. Then some paperwork is filed, and the garnishment usually comes out of the next paycheck the borrower receives.

How do we find out where someone works? All depends. We get credit reports, and often they are found there. Sometimes through internet postings of positions on publicly accessible sites. (Run a quick Google search - I'll bet you can find out where you work real fast.) And if you work for a large company, chances are they do verifications through a service that we subscribe to, and when those reports are run once a week, we get a gift from the garnishment Gods with the verification of employment and garnishment address in a neat little package.

Garnishment is not a small amount of money, either. Assuming a borrower isn't already being garnished for back taxes or child support (we're third in line), the garnishment is 15% of gross salary.

This is the first issue I have with garnishments. It requires very little effort, and we have a certain number we are supposed to put through every month as a collection group. My bonus check does not directly depend on a number of garnishments, but there are colleagues of mine whose bonus checks do.

So here is an example of the problem - I got a "gift" of a subscription hit for a borrower who is verified to be employed by a large business concern that is well-known to be solely located in the State of Washington. All the contact information I have for the borrower is most decidedly NOT in the State of Washington, and all reasonable attempts to locate them in Washington have failed, as well as any attempt to locate them directly at the place of employment. So, with no contact to the borrower whatsoever - there goes 15% of salary.

Should they contact us after the garnishment is attached, it cannot be removed - only reduced if they make voluntary payments on top of the garnishment, and they make the same number of payments as if they had their loan "rehabilitated" as noted in previous posts. Though when the loan finishes the rehabilitation and is funded through a new agency, the garnishment is then lifted.

The second problem I have is with the attitude toward garnishments. Not everyone has the same queasiness about the nature of garnishments that I do (especially those whose bonus checks are tied to a number per month). When someone has verified a borrower's employment only to find out that they do not meet garnishment requirements, there is a gnashing of teeth and a grumbling that a borrower is not "garnishable". It strikes me almost as a dehumanization - making that person really just a screen of information.

When I did mention my queasiness to the former senior collector on our team, he gave me two suggestions of other ways to look at it: the first being the personal responsibility of the borrower to keep track of their affairs, and the second being that the set-up garnishment is a leverage tool for getting a borrower into a payment plan - you will be garnished beginning on this date unless we get you into an arrangement now. I see that value, and have tried to adopt that view.

The problem is a borrower who has the Angry reaction and is garnishable. There can be almost a vindictiveness on the part of collectors with borrowers who have that combination. The phrase of "well, he wants to yell at me, let's see how he likes that 15% garnishment" has been heard on our team more than once (and out loud from some other teams much more frequently). And, though I hate to admit it, has flown from my own mouth at least once that I remember.

And anyone who says it will fully point out that the individual had more than sufficient opportunity to defer, or work with us, or be reasonable when they called. And I'm aware of that. We all have many opportunities to alter our reality to stay in reasonable positions. But I am far too aware of the circumstances that lead people into situations they never intended. And there, but for the Grace of God, go I.