Our company has decided to change our pay period to four weekly rather than weekly, as it has been in the 9 years I've worked here. Starting from 1st January we will have to wait 4 weeks to get our 1st pay slip, which means will have to wait four weeks from start of year to get paid. In our contracts it states we are to get paid weekly. Is this breaking the terms of the contract? Many lads working here are not happy, as this will now interfere with mortgage payments etc which leave the bank 1st of every month. The company has offered no interest loans to help tide us over and deal with the changeover, however these will of course need to be paid back, which will affect wages for months going forward. A meeting has been arranged for next week between the company bosses, trade union representatives and shop stewards. Should we be entitled to some sort of payment from the company (one we don't have to pay back) as they seem to be breaking the terms of the contract. A few lads have said this, but not sure if this is true and I really don't want to take the loan they're offering as will be hit for 7-8 months after in my wages.
Change of pay period - Can we be compensated?
- Thread starter PaddyW
- Start date
BoscoTalking
Registered User
- Messages
- 321
no offence but at this moment in time if you guys are looking for more money for getting paid differently you are off your game.
A contract of employment can be ammended - its not a tit-for-tat, bargaining tool IMO unless you are in the private sector.
A contract of employment can be ammended - its not a tit-for-tat, bargaining tool IMO unless you are in the private sector.
Well, not me personally penny, my plan is to have savings aside for that period rather than take the loan. Some guys however are not in as fortunate a position as I am and as such will be hit harder.
And no offence taken either
p.s. it is private sector, not public.
And no offence taken either
p.s. it is private sector, not public.
Last edited:
Just a couple of points:
4 Weekly is very messy. You would be much better off getting paid Monthly.
There are 13 4 Week periods in a year, actually there can be 14 if your pay date falls on the 31st of December and/or the 30th for leap years.
The end result is that it gets very hard to manage direct debits, which come out on a fixed date each month. On the other hand changing to Monthly makes managing DDs much easer. I know of the number of places who changed from Weekly to Monthly and the employees resisted it at first, but after a couple of months they even admitted that they should have done it years earlier.
The Loan. There is no such thing as a free loan. If your employer does not charge interest you are due to pay BIK on the value of the interest at 12%. This will rate has a good change of going up in the budget.
4 Weekly is very messy. You would be much better off getting paid Monthly.
There are 13 4 Week periods in a year, actually there can be 14 if your pay date falls on the 31st of December and/or the 30th for leap years.
The end result is that it gets very hard to manage direct debits, which come out on a fixed date each month. On the other hand changing to Monthly makes managing DDs much easer. I know of the number of places who changed from Weekly to Monthly and the employees resisted it at first, but after a couple of months they even admitted that they should have done it years earlier.
The Loan. There is no such thing as a free loan. If your employer does not charge interest you are due to pay BIK on the value of the interest at 12%. This will rate has a good change of going up in the budget.
Thanks Towger, the whole 4 weekly thing is a pain. I'd much prefer monthly also, especially for the direct debits etc.
And as for the loan, I am very wary of that. I would prefer to have money saved towards the period of no payments rather than take it. The BIK side of it had never even entered my mind, thanks for that.
And as for the loan, I am very wary of that. I would prefer to have money saved towards the period of no payments rather than take it. The BIK side of it had never even entered my mind, thanks for that.
R
rmelly
Guest
Has your employer given a reason for this change? Presumably it is to reduce payroll processing costs? The fact they have left things as they were for 9 or more years suggests to me that this cost cutting measure is not something they want to do but feel it is necessary in current economic climate? Rather than more drastic steps such as pay freezes and/or redundance?
How is the company doing? Are they initiating any (other) cost saving inititatives?
How is the company doing? Are they initiating any (other) cost saving inititatives?
Well, I left out and perhaps I should have mentioned, that it is our controlling company, based in the UK, which is implementing these changes to streamline their payroll procedures. The company is doing relatively fine, obviously has experienced a slight decline in business, but nothing too drastic. No other cost saving initiatives in place.