Assuming the agreement was entered in good faith by both parties. Why should the person who loaned the money be the one to suffer when the person who borrowed the money decides they rather spend their money on something other then paying the loan back. The person who loaned the money has responsibilities and obligations they must keep too. Lack of payment is lack of income. So by your argument - it is okay for the person who loaned the money to suffer but not the borrower and so therefore it is okay it they don't pay their bill. So I guess the take away from this would be "never a lender be..."
Creditors who go through the court system can obtain the right to garnish a portion of your pay check. This is something they can do without a judge's approval. I also think the percentage that they can take is relatively small. There's not much of an opinion here, just facts.
Although it may not seem fair, and may be an inconvenience, it is definitely fair. When individuals sign up for the creditors service, whether it is a loan or a line of credit, they are agreeing to the terms that the creditor is demanding. More often than not, part of the terms the consumer agrees to is the garnishing of wages if payments are not made.
Creditors shouldn't have any right to take directly from your paycheck if you fall behind on payments. They should contact you to try to make alternative arrangements to get the payment as it may be a genuine mistake or issue which has caused the non payment. No one should be able to do anything directly to your paycheck
Technically they have a "right" because you owe them money and stuff, but at the same time, what if you really need that money to feed your children or something? They need to educate people about the use of credit cards more. But then they really wouldn't have as many people signing up for them.