I JUST STARTED AT A BANK IN FLORIDA AND I WAS IN SHOCK THAT MY NEW BANK IS NOT USEING A MICRO FILMER AND WE GIVE OUR PROOF TO A COURIER WHO THEN TAKES TO A PLANE AND IT IS FLOW OUT OF STATE , AND GOD KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS THEN TO THE BAG , WE ALWAYS USED A FILMER FOR ALL CHECKS IN MY OTHER BANK OUT OF STATE ,I THINK I FEEL BETER TO SPEND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF COST TO PROTECT THE GREAT LOST AND RECONSTRUCTION COST IN THE FUTURE IF THE CHECKS ARE LOST IN TRANSIT ...

I don't know that you're asking a question but, I've been in banking for 23.5 years and only ONCE in that entire time has proof work been lost in transit between offices. I imagine your new employer has weighed the cost of filming against the risk of losing work and decided against it. Just another risk of doing business. However, Check 21 may change the need to microfilm at any location as some banks may convert to imaging all items at the branch level without sending anything in transit.

You go ahead and try to reconstruct lost checks ,I agree with this first person every one should have some type of back up... to many unanswerd questions regarding to check 21 I will take filming . anyday I have been in banking for over 27 years... and i am glad to get out of it this year, This field is Not the same anymore no loyalty just Greed !the cost of a micro filmer is better then takeing on a staff to reconstruct the items.and chassing down every one who wrote the check on the day of the loss .