# Workers' Rights re Method of Salary Payment



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

I have always been paid my salary by cheque.

Now my employer is forcing me to accept payment electronically.

What are my rights?


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

Why is it a big deal for you?
The money will be in your account sooner. 

Your employer should be able to get the bank to offer preferential banking from his or her bank to all employees with accounts at the same bank. Bank of Ireland give us a 0.25% discount on mortgages, discounts on loans and discounts on insurance products because we are all paid electronically. The bigger the company the more chance of the preferential offers.


----------



## ajapale (24 May 2006)

As far as I know the mode of payment (cash, cheque, eft etc) of wages are part of the terms and conditions of your employment contract.

The terms and conditions of your employment cannot be unilateraly changed by your employer. Employers wanting to introduce eft usually negotiate with trade unions and/or individuals regarding the change.

Purple, believe it or not there are employees (and pensioners) who do not have bank accounts and are reluctant to set one up.

Some employers do a poor job in explaining to employees the advantages of eft payments.

aj


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Thanks aj



			
				ajapale said:
			
		

> As far as I know the mode of payment (cash, cheque, eft etc) of wages are part of the terms and conditions of your employment contract.
> 
> The terms and conditions of your employment cannot be unilateraly changed by your employer. Employers wanting to introduce eft usually negotiate with trade unions and/or individuals regarding the change.
> 
> ...


 
That may be true but now I know my employer has managed to get this clause in as part of the SP2 agreement for our sector with the result that if we do not go on Paypath we will be deemed as non compliant and not receive any of the pay rises in the new SP agreement. To me this is a form of Bullying and it only affects 4 persons out of a large number and the Unions allowed this.

How can this be legal when under the 1991 Payment of Wages act that I have a right to be paid by cheque?

Why do I and the other 3 people have to give extra concessions to Management to get the same pay rise as everyone else?

How do the Unions allow management to go to these talks with a shopping basket of concessions they want from their workers and allow them to make this basket a part of the SP Agreement even though it affects only a very small sector?

I think the demise of the Unions has begun.


----------



## Diziet (24 May 2006)

I don't understand what the problem is - electronic transfer is simpler, cheaper and quicker for the employee. Why do you want to be paid by cheque?

The company presumably wants to simplify their administration, ahve offered a (probably a bit heayvy handed) incentive, but really in practice this does not seem to disadvantage the workers. If you think that being asked to be paid electronically is bullying, then I wonder if you have any experience of what bullying is.


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Diziet,

I have a right to be paid by cheque and I do count it as being heavy handed management taking that right from me without consultation. 

It is not Paypath as such that is the problem it is the principle of it.

Management now needn't negotiate with union members any longer they can just have all their issues included in SP Agreements without any barganing and consultation.


----------



## Sherman (24 May 2006)

> Why do I and the other 3 people have to give extra concessions to Management to get the same pay rise as everyone else?


 
Jebus, 'extra concessions to Management'.

Where are you, British Leyland circa 1978?

The demise of the unions, which you lament, would only be hastened by obstinately refusing to allow such a change in payment methods.



> It is not Paypath as such that is the problem it is the principle of it.


 
Lucky for you we have an economy where we can get our knickers in a twist over such trivial 'principles'.


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Sherman.

Do you feel Management have the right to everything they want without negotiations ?

Do you want workers to give up all their rights?

Why bother having unions then?


----------



## Dinky (24 May 2006)

You wouldn't happen to be one of the Irish Rail workers resisting electronic payment because they'd lose out on the extra hour they get off to cash or lodge their cheques, would you?


----------



## Lorz (24 May 2006)

You don't happen to drive a train do you!?!?!  TBH I can't see the problem with Mgmnt paying you via eft.  It's not as though they are proposing to pay you less!  As for the comment about Mgmnt getting everything they want - Mgmnt are there for a reason - to manage the company.  They are deemed to have necessary qualifications to make informed decisions and so more often than not their decision is the best for everyone concerned - company and staff.  TBH I also think some workers have too many rights and have forgotten why Trade Unions were firstly established - to protect ee's who were working in unsafe environments, long hours, poor pay, etc, etc - not people who wanted to be paid by cheque rather than eft.  If this is the most terrible thing that mgmnt have done to you - you really don't have things too bad.


----------



## Lorz (24 May 2006)

Dinky said:
			
		

> You wouldn't happen to be one of the Irish Rail workers resisting electronic payment because they'd lose out on the extra hour they get off to cash or lodge their cheques, would you?


 
Crossed post with Dinky - LMAO


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

Hi glenwalsh, what other concessions have management forced upon you and in what have they damaged you?
Why is it a problem if your employer introduces something that saves the company money with minimal impact on you? If you are the private sector your job has just been made a little more secure by the good management of your companies overheads.


----------



## Diziet (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> Diziet,
> 
> I have a right to be paid by cheque and I do count it as being heavy handed management taking that right from me without consultation.
> 
> ...


 
Negotiate what?
[management] we would like to pay you electronically - it is cheaper for us and quicker for you to get the money in your account.
[union] We want to be paid by cheque
[management] Why?
[union] Ermm...

What is the principle at stake here? Are you paid less, have they made your life more inconvenient? Would you be consulted if they changed to a different firm of accountants? No, because it makes no difference to you.

On the other hand, if you are out to make trouble, then go ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously. There are real employee relation problems out there, but on a scale of 1-10 I reckon this one is around 0.25.


----------



## jhegarty (24 May 2006)

sounds like that crowd in waterford who wanted €12k in relocation money when their jobs moved 2 miles.... and you will be suprised when you jobs move to india....


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Diziet said:
			
		

> What is the principle at stake here?


 
As I said the principle is I have a right to be paid by cheque.

This isn't the only issue. Management got a list of 10 items in as part of the SP Agreement without consulting the Union. Normally issues would be discussed not forced upon people.

To the others no I am not a train driver.

Anyway I find it interesting that the only person to answer my simple original question was Ajapale everyone else answers a question with a question.


----------



## Sherman (24 May 2006)

> it only affects 4 persons out of a large number and the Unions allowed this.


 
Okay then, in an effort to help you resolve your query, why don't you take it up with your union? After all, you say yourself the unions agreed to this. I presume the unions are there to represent the workers' interests, and in their professional industrial relations experience have decided that agreeing to this payment method was in the best interests of their members.

Your problem is with your union, not your employer. You don't say how many people agreed to this move, but I would wager that your 4 brave holdouts are a very small minority, otherwise you would have changed your union's policy on this. Live with it or go somewhere where you know you'll be paid by cheque.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> As I said the principle is I have a right to be paid by cheque.


 That's not a principle, it's a clerical function.



			
				glenwalsh said:
			
		

> This isn't the only issue. Management got a list of 10 items in as part of the SP Agreement without consulting the Union. Normally issues would be discussed not forced upon people.


 I hope the other issues have more substance than this one.



			
				glenwalsh said:
			
		

> Anyway I find it interesting that the only person to answer my simple original question was Ajapale everyone else answers a question with a question.


 Maybe everyone else thought that it was a ridiculous thing to be getting hot under the collar about?


----------



## Art (24 May 2006)

Glenwalsh,

Given that ajpale has answered your question can you answer the question put to you by all of the other posters. 

Here we go again, one last time:

Why do you want to be paid by cheque?


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Art said:
			
		

> Glenwalsh,
> 
> Given that ajpale has answered your question can you answer the question put to you by all of the other posters.
> 
> ...


 
Art 

Simply because I am of the old school and for 30 odd yrs I have been paid by cheque and every Thursday evening I hand my cheque over to my better half.

This has worked well for 30 yrs so if its not broken why fix it?


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> This has worked well for 30 yrs so if its not broken why fix it?


 Because the only constant in life is change. Some of it is good, some of it is bad but most of it makes little difference.


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> Because the only constant in life is change. Some of it is good, some of it is bad but most of it makes little difference.


 

Very profound Purple. You are happy in your own little world and I am in mine until my cage is rattled.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> Very profound Purple. You are happy in your own little world and I am in mine until my cage is rattled.


My world is constantly changing; my cage is constantly being rattled. My wages have been paid into my account for the last 6 years. I just accepted it as one of those little things.


----------



## Art (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> Art
> 
> Simply because I am of the old school and for 30 odd yrs I have been paid by cheque and every Thursday evening I hand my cheque over to my better half.
> 
> This has worked well for 30 yrs so if its not broken why fix it?


 
Well that clears up that so. Some of the workers in a company I worked in a number years ago kicked up when the company insisted on EFT because they did not want their better halves seeing what went into their bank accounts. Prior to the introduction of EFT they generally cashed their cheques in the pub and, unlike you, only gave a certain amount of cash to their wives telling them that this was what they earned.


----------



## ajapale (24 May 2006)

Hi GW,

You may have misunderstood. You have a right to be paid in the mode set out in your contract of employment. You do not neccessarily have an automatic right to be paid by cheque.

If as part of the collective bargaining process representatives have agreed to eft payments Im afraid you are bound by the agreement even if you are not a member of a union.

Some posters are assuming that you are not in the private sector. Is this assumption correct?

There are many reasons why people might not like eft for instance they may not have, want or need a bank account. As far as I know you cant do eft to credit unions (directly). Employees may be from the UK or further afield and have no bank accounts in this juristiction. Finally banks have been known to make mistakes leading to delays in people getting their money. All these issues can be mitigated if the employer engages with employees and "sells" the benefits of eft.

If I were your employer I would also be trying to move all employees to a monthly payroll for efficiency purposes. I would of course negotiate this.



> *2.*—(1) Wages may be paid by and only by one or more of the following modes:
> 
> 
> ( _a_ )	a cheque, draft or other bill of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882,
> ...


----------



## glenwalsh (24 May 2006)

ajapale said:
			
		

> Hi GW,
> 
> You may have misunderstood. You have a right to be paid in the mode set out in your contract of employment. You do not neccessarily have an automatic right to be paid by cheque.
> 
> ...


 
Again thanks aj

Management had about 10 issues that were causing problems for them and rather than negotiate with the union they succeded in getting them included as part of the upcoming SP Agreement whereby if we do not accept all their demands we will be cited as being non compliant and any pay rises under the next SP will be withheld.

I just felt that, under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which states "The modes of payment prescribed in the act include cheque, credit transfer, cash----" etc., if I am being paid by a legal method and have been for in excess of 30yrs how can management without consulting me put me on another payment method. 

Not alone that but now they need never again negotiate locally with the union just head off to the wage agreement talks with their shopping basket full.

I am not in the Private Sector


----------



## ajapale (24 May 2006)

Hi GW,

Forgive the ignorance but whats SP2?

aj


----------



## CCOVICH (24 May 2006)

I'd imagine SP=Sustaining Progress

(Could progress mean moving to electronic banking  )


----------



## SteelBlue05 (24 May 2006)

glenwalsh said:
			
		

> I am not in the Private Sector


 
Ah yes, nothing like wasting tax payers money on trivial issues.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2006)

While I do not agree that this issue is worth getting worked up about as an employer I think that it is bad form and bad management to implement change without consultation, i.e. explaining the reason for the change.


----------



## scuby (24 May 2006)

i was in bad form before i read this but now i am having a laugh. thanks you guys !!!!
Nice to know that for every little trivial matter in life we have to think about getting a union involved, soon companies will leave ireland as we seem to be getting mighty pissy over little things.
difference in getting a cheque and getting in your a/c ? all i can say is, as least i have my health and am not worried about how i get paid...


----------



## MOB (25 May 2006)

"This has worked well for 30 yrs so if its not broken why fix it?"

I am astonished that such an argument could be made (presumably) with a straight face.  The Original Poster has internet access, and was able to post on this forum at various times today during normal working hours.  If this internet access is at his place of employment, how would he feel if his employer barred all non-work usage?  And perhaps banned all personal mobile phones in the workplace?  

"Ye've managed without this stuff for 30 years lads, ye can't bring it into this workplace unless your union negotiates special permission for it, in return for increased productivity. "    

Can you see, glenwalsh, how utterly preposterous, how deeply offensive it would be if your employer issued edicts such as this?   There is a basic level of moving with the times which is naturally concomitant with life in the 21st century.  It's not a "concession"; It's not a "change in work practice"; It's just the normal march of technological progress.  Paying money electronically is in this category.


----------



## 3CC (25 May 2006)

glenwalsh,

You say you have a right to be paid by cheque, and if so good luck to you. But I don't see how you have a right to be paid by cheque AND also claim the SP payment which is contingent on, among other things, being paid by ETF.

It sounds like you want the SP and to give nothing in return!


----------



## sluice44 (25 May 2006)

> Simply because I am of the old school and for 30 odd yrs I have been paid by cheque and every Thursday evening I hand my cheque over to my better half.


What does your better half think of this?  It must be nice to have someone to queue for you in the bank.

If forced to accept EFT, perhaps you could maintain your traditional _custom and practice_ by giving your better half your bank lodgement book every Thursday?  I presume you don't have an ATM card?


----------



## contemporary (26 May 2006)

this is just another reason why the public sector needs to be seriously reformed, whinging over getting paid quicker and directly into your account, have you nothing better to worry about??


----------



## mell61 (26 May 2006)

And unions wonder why the younger workers aren't interested in being represented...
Like a previous poster this gave me a good belly laugh...
After going down the redundancy route twice in the past 10 year while my job was moved to another cheaper country this post is a joke.    
Wake up and smell the 21st century, this is the sort of stagnant thinking that was the 1970s and 1980s, can we expect a picket line while you bring the country to its knees objecting to catching up with the rest of the working population?
Just build a bridge, and get over it!


----------



## CCOVICH (26 May 2006)

I think everyone's had their say at this stage and the substantive issue re. rights etc. has been addressed by _ajapale_ and others. 

Most of the rest of what has been said is better reserved for _Letting Off Steam_.

Thread locked by CCOVICH.


----------

