changing pay dates

[kingswood]

genuinely asking for a friend. im a union rep too so its not like I want free advice and aren't a brother :-) the comply involved doesn't recognise a union for collective bargaining.

third sector company pays its staff 23rd of the month, but pays the full month. so u start 1st of the month, come 23rd you get the full month and so on.

they're doing - not proposing, its a done deal - to change the pay date to the 5th of the month. on this schedule- March 23rd pay day, paid until the end of March. then no pay in April then paid on may 5th. but only your 4 week salary.

im assuming you've been paid until the end of March in March. youre then your paid until the end of April on the 5th May. meaning your now working a week in hand as opposed to week in advance!

does this sound right?

thanks

[MustangGT]

kingswood said:

genuinely asking for a friend. im a union rep too so its not like I want free advice and aren't a brother :-) the comply involved doesn't recognise a union for collective bargaining.

third sector company pays its staff 23rd of the month, but pays the full month. so u start 1st of the month, come 23rd you get the full month and so on.

they're doing - not proposing, its a done deal - to change the pay date to the 5th of the month. on this schedule- March 23rd pay day, paid until the end of March. then no pay in April then paid on may 5th. but only your 4 week salary.

im assuming you've been paid until the end of March in March. youre then your paid until the end of April on the 5th May. meaning your now working a week in hand as opposed to week in advance!

does this sound right?

thanks

First thing to note is that the company cannot unilaterally change the contract of employment by altering the pay date without consultation and agreement of the staff.

To be paid on the 5th is technically okay in principle, however, it should be for the full month's pay each time.

[CraigNewmarket]

MustangGT said:

kingswood said:

genuinely asking for a friend. im a union rep too so its not like I want free advice and aren't a brother :-) the comply involved doesn't recognise a union for collective bargaining.

third sector company pays its staff 23rd of the month, but pays the full month. so u start 1st of the month, come 23rd you get the full month and so on.

they're doing - not proposing, its a done deal - to change the pay date to the 5th of the month. on this schedule- March 23rd pay day, paid until the end of March. then no pay in April then paid on may 5th. but only your 4 week salary.

im assuming you've been paid until the end of March in March. youre then your paid until the end of April on the 5th May. meaning your now working a week in hand as opposed to week in advance!

does this sound right?

thanks

First thing to note is that the company cannot unilaterally change the contract of employment by altering the pay date without consultation and agreement of the staff.

To be paid on the 5th is technically okay in principle, however, it should be for the full month's pay each time.

Dont think this is correct, Leeds city council have just changed every employee pay dates from the 16th to the 26th of the month without any consultation or agreement of staff.

[RC1807]

CraigNewmarket said:

Dont think this is correct, Leeds city council have just changed every employee pay dates from the 16th to the 26th of the month without any consultation or agreement of staff.

Harsh.
For (too) many now, 10 days is the difference between paying bills or not, or food bank use

I worked for a US bank in the UK many years ago. We were paid mid-month for the whole month.

[MustangGT]

CraigNewmarket said:

MustangGT said:

kingswood said:

genuinely asking for a friend. im a union rep too so its not like I want free advice and aren't a brother :-) the comply involved doesn't recognise a union for collective bargaining.

third sector company pays its staff 23rd of the month, but pays the full month. so u start 1st of the month, come 23rd you get the full month and so on.

they're doing - not proposing, its a done deal - to change the pay date to the 5th of the month. on this schedule- March 23rd pay day, paid until the end of March. then no pay in April then paid on may 5th. but only your 4 week salary.

im assuming you've been paid until the end of March in March. youre then your paid until the end of April on the 5th May. meaning your now working a week in hand as opposed to week in advance!

does this sound right?

thanks

First thing to note is that the company cannot unilaterally change the contract of employment by altering the pay date without consultation and agreement of the staff.

To be paid on the 5th is technically okay in principle, however, it should be for the full month's pay each time.

Dont think this is correct, Leeds city council have just changed every employee pay dates from the 16th to the 26th of the month without any consultation or agreement of staff.

If your contract states you will be paid on the 16th then that is the date you must be paid. To change it is a change to the employment contract which requires the employees agreement.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

MustangGT said:

If your contract states you will be paid on the 16th then that is the date you must be paid. To change it is a change to the employment contract which requires the employees agreement.

I'm retired now (thankfully).

I never worked anywhere where the payment date was stipulated in the contract of employment...so I'm assuming it's quite rare?

[Mandat]

Nothing wrong in principle with the new approach, but it could affect badly those that live pay day to pay day, who don't have a buffer in their account to cover the extra 12 - 13 days until the May pay day.

An obvious solution would be for the company to pay, say 50-75% of the April pay on 23 April, with the balance paid on 5 May. This would tide over those that need the cash flow before the new pay date becomes the norm.

[MustangGT]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

MustangGT said:

If your contract states you will be paid on the 16th then that is the date you must be paid. To change it is a change to the employment contract which requires the employees agreement.

I'm retired now (thankfully).

I never worked anywhere where the payment date was stipulated in the contract of employment...so I'm assuming it's quite rare?

Not at all, most contracts will state the pay date, I have never not had a statement around pay date. It may say 'by the last working day' or on the last Friday or similar. In my first example a change from the 16th to the final working day would be fine because they were paying early.

How else would you know when you get paid?

[MustangGT]

As a separate subject, to move from within the month to after month end is never good, a fair proportion of people will have set DD payment schedules for the 1st of the month. I would not like to be in that situation.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

MustangGT said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

MustangGT said:

If your contract states you will be paid on the 16th then that is the date you must be paid. To change it is a change to the employment contract which requires the employees agreement.

I'm retired now (thankfully).

I never worked anywhere where the payment date was stipulated in the contract of employment...so I'm assuming it's quite rare?

Not at all, most contracts will state the pay date, I have never not had a statement around pay date. It may say 'by the last working day' or on the last Friday or similar. In my first example a change from the 16th to the final working day would be fine because they were paying early.

How else would you know when you get paid?

All of mine said at the end of the month latest (or words to that effect).

[worsy]

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

[StevieBee]

MustangGT said:

CraigNewmarket said:

MustangGT said:

kingswood said:

genuinely asking for a friend. im a union rep too so its not like I want free advice and aren't a brother :-) the comply involved doesn't recognise a union for collective bargaining.

third sector company pays its staff 23rd of the month, but pays the full month. so u start 1st of the month, come 23rd you get the full month and so on.

they're doing - not proposing, its a done deal - to change the pay date to the 5th of the month. on this schedule- March 23rd pay day, paid until the end of March. then no pay in April then paid on may 5th. but only your 4 week salary.

im assuming you've been paid until the end of March in March. youre then your paid until the end of April on the 5th May. meaning your now working a week in hand as opposed to week in advance!

does this sound right?

thanks

First thing to note is that the company cannot unilaterally change the contract of employment by altering the pay date without consultation and agreement of the staff.

To be paid on the 5th is technically okay in principle, however, it should be for the full month's pay each time.

Dont think this is correct, Leeds city council have just changed every employee pay dates from the 16th to the 26th of the month without any consultation or agreement of staff.

If your contract states you will be paid on the 16th then that is the date you must be paid. To change it is a change to the employment contract which requires the employees agreement.

Mustang is correct. Pay date is a key part of an employee contract and most follow consultation before being changed.

However, 'Consultation' is somewhat of an arbitrary term because it suggests scope for option or negation when in reality, that's not always the case. Simply informing people of the change can be seen as consultation.

[borcy]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

I'd be surprised if this is such an issue? Do that many leave one particular company on such a date as to get a weeks wages for nothing?

[Muzzer79]

borcy said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

I'd be surprised if this is such an issue? Do that many leave one particular company on such a date as to get a weeks wages for nothing?

We are in the process of changing pay dates for this very reason. It doesn't happen every month, but if you have a lot of staff, especially at the lower end of the pay scale, if people resign then you can guarantee that at least some people will leave on pay day rather than serving notice to the end of the month. Happens more often that you'd think.

Anyway, it does indeed have to be a contractual change that needs to be consulted on. In a previous business, the company paid us compensation for changing the pay date as things like mortgage payments were affected by changing the date of payment to a later date.

[borcy]

Muzzer79 said:

We are in the process of changing pay dates for this very reason. It doesn't happen every month, but if you have a lot of staff, especially at the lower end of the pay scale, if people resign then you can guarantee that at least some people will leave on pay day rather than serving notice to the end of the month. Happens more often that you'd think.

Anyway, it does indeed have to be a contractual change that needs to be consulted on. In a previous business, the company paid us compensation for changing the pay date as things like mortgage payments were affected by changing the date of payment to a later date.

Fair enough, I didn't know it happened that often.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

borcy said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

I'd be surprised if this is such an issue? Do that many leave one particular company on such a date as to get a weeks wages for nothing?

Yes. It's usually planned and can be more than a week. (Most payrolls are processed a few days before the payment date). It can amount to an unnecessary cost of tens of thousands if you are a substantial employer.

[MustangGT]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

borcy said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

I'd be surprised if this is such an issue? Do that many leave one particular company on such a date as to get a weeks wages for nothing?

Yes. It's usually planned and can be more than a week. (Most payrolls are processed a few days before the payment date). It can amount to an unnecessary cost of tens of thousands if you are a substantial employer.

All overpayments are recoverable, so not really an issue for most companies

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

MustangGT said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

borcy said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

worsy said:

Sure it's the 5th, not the 6th. 5th May is a Bank holiday.

Smacks of saving a pay date in the tax year 24/5 which could in turn suggest money troubles.

Or they've been burned by paying people up front?

Paying up front always seems a strange notion to me. I too worked at a company that paid (on average) three weeks in arrears and one week in advance. There's always an (unnecessary) risk that someone clears off on the 24th of the month.

The last few companies sensibly paid on the last day of the month.

I'd be surprised if this is such an issue? Do that many leave one particular company on such a date as to get a weeks wages for nothing?

Yes. It's usually planned and can be more than a week. (Most payrolls are processed a few days before the payment date). It can amount to an unnecessary cost of tens of thousands if you are a substantial employer.

All overpayments are recoverable, so not really an issue for most companies

Are you serious? (Or most likely I'm due a parrot, sorry if I've missed the gag)

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

But, even if you are, why put the company in that place when unnecessary?