In the bank's view, the old man can't write, but his family will sign, which means that if something goes wrong in the future, the bank will be responsible, especially if the bank has had similar experience. There used to be an old man who couldn't write, and then his family signed it, but then his money disappeared and he went to the bank. For banks, they don't know where the money went, whether the old man took it himself or the signer took it. This matter is unclear. Therefore, after the bank has lost money, there is a rule that people can't sign it to prevent similar things from happening.
However, this provision is unreasonable. There are many old people who can't write. For example, how many old people know how to operate on the machine, how to take the number and queue up, and so on. Society needs development, but we can't just abandon those who can't keep up with it. For things like old people who can't write, banks can choose to press fingerprints, and even for convenience, they can stipulate that old people over the age of many are not allowed to use signatures and press fingerprints uniformly. In this way, there will be much less trouble, and there is no need to worry that the old man's money will be taken away by others.
Secondly, this incident has developed to the internet, which shows that there was a quarrel at that time, but the manager or even the management of the bank did not come out to solve this matter, which shows that the staff of the branch lacked the service responsibility and did not implement the purpose of good service, but regarded themselves as uncles and did not solve the problems that occurred in their own jurisdictions, thus making a big fuss and damaging the image of the bank in the industry and even the public. This is extremely stupid.
Finally, I sincerely hope that every industry should think about similar special situations, and at the same time, while facilitating 99%, don't forget the special population of 1%.