What is the effect of garnishment of wages on a wage earner when the employer garnishes their wages as soon as they are received?

In Sniadach the majority dwelled on the considerable hardships that were imposed on a wage earner by the garnishment of wages, emphasizing [5 Cal.3d 559] that 'as a practical matter' the summary remedy often enabled a creditor to 'drive (a debtor and his) family to the wall.' (395 U.S. at pp. 341--342, 89 S.Ct. 1820.) Although the instant attachment provision does not permit the attachment of wages, it does enable a creditor to deprive a debtor of the use of much property at least equally vital to the debtor's sustenance. Perhaps the most obvious example of the type of hardship condemned in Sniadach is the attachment of the proceeds of a bank account composed of the earnings of the debtor; surely there can be no rational distinction drawn between the freezing of such wages in the hands of an employer, which was struck down in Sniadach, and the attachment of such moneys as soon as they have been received from the employer and deposited in a bank. In both instances the attachments serve to deprive the debtor of assets that he expects to use for everyday expenses, thus subjecting him to enormous pressure to settle the underlying claim without litigation, even when he may have a meritorious defense. ²² (See Larson v. Fetherston (1969) 44 Wis.2d 712, 718, 172

Page 725