weekly - monthly pay

Nebulous2

I'm not sure why the company stands to make a lot of money from this going through? It saves some on administration and there may be some incidental savings in terms of a reduction in management time dealing with payroll issues, but it might not be as much as you think.

I'd concentrate on transitional support if you want negotiate anything. I've known people to get a modest payment - maybe £100 for inconvenience. I've also known companies to deal with hardship issues on an individual basis and maybe make an interim payment halfway through the first month.

chrisbur

HappyMJ wrote: »

If they are paying 4 and 5 weekly then they'll use the weekly NI deduction rates and multiply by 4 or 5 so it won't make any difference. They should not be using the monthly NI deduction rates in that case.

The CWG2 (Employers' guide) advises that if the employee is paid monthly then the monthly tables and limits should be used, and if the employee is paid 4 weekly the weekly tables and limits should be used. These periods are decided on how often the employee is paid not on what the employee is paid for so I believe that the employee will be treated as monthly paid and their belief that someone earning at or just over the weekly earnings threshold will be worse off as they have calculated.
As the guidance might be seen as not exactly covering this situation might be worth them getting the employer to confirm with HMRC and perhaps suggesting they might go to 4 weekly pay instead, which would give the virtually the same advantages to them and avoid this NI problem.

Simon_Stir

chrisbur wrote: »

The CWG2 (Employers' guide) advises that if the employee is paid monthly then the monthly tables and limits should be used, and if the employee is paid 4 weekly the weekly tables and limits should be used. These periods are decided on how often the employee is paid not on what the employee is paid for so I believe that the employee will be treated as monthly paid and their belief that someone earning at or just over the weekly earnings threshold will be worse off as they have calculated.
As the guidance might be seen as not exactly covering this situation might be worth them getting the employer to confirm with HMRC and perhaps suggesting they might go to 4 weekly pay instead, which would give the virtually the same advantages to them and avoid this NI problem.

I like this, This is the kind of idea's suggestions I was hoping for, four weekly pay instead of monthly would skip that extra NI on some of the employees. I doubt they will listen but its worth the punt.

Simon_Stir

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I'm not sure why the company stands to make a lot of money from this going through? It saves some on administration and there may be some incidental savings in terms of a reduction in management time dealing with payroll issues, but it might not be as much as you think.

I'd concentrate on transitional support if you want negotiate anything. I've known people to get a modest payment - maybe £100 for inconvenience. I've also known companies to deal with hardship issues on an individual basis and maybe make an interim payment halfway through the first month.

While it is true in saying I don't know as I have not confirmed any specific amounts. I am running of guess work here, I believe it would be a lot due to the company running 52 BACS transfers a year per staff member, And there are a lot of us. They would be reducing that by 40 transactions per staff member, As you already mentioned the saved time with payroll and management, plus the cost and distribution costs of 100s of 1000s of payslips a year.


The other large factor I would mention is if I am personally going to lose 6 weeks interest every 4 week month, That would mean every other staff member is in that same boat with me. That would in turn mean, If we are not gaining that interest because funds are being stored in our company's bank, The company would be collecting the interest on the held back balance. I hate to think of the size of this work force.


As mentioned above I am not anti change, I just don't feel the company should get win win win, at the expense of the staff.

chrisbur

Simon_Stir wrote: »

I like this, This is the kind of idea's suggestions I was hoping for, four weekly pay instead of monthly would skip that extra NI on some of the employees. I doubt they will listen but its worth the punt.

Certainly worth a go; I hope you are successful.

Simon_Stir

amiehall wrote: »

I would suggest it probably isn't worth damaging your relationship with your employer over.

I agree completely with you here, Its a very hard situation. This is one of the reasons why during our meeting I said nothing, The other being I didn't want to spurt anything out in the heat of the moment without any facts.

amiehall wrote: »

Possibly you could use this opportunity to negotiate a payrise.

I was thinking the same thing, Again good advice. Again I think its a no but its also worth a punt.

chrisbur

I do not feel that you need to damage relationship with your employer. A change to 4 weekly pay rather than monthly would I feel benefit all. Those employees affected by the increase in NI would feel happier which might benefit the employer but also from the employer's point of view there is an employers national insurance threshold so if the employee pays less they also pay less. From this point of view you are helping employees and employer.

Simon_Stir

chrisbur wrote: »

I do not feel that you need to damage relationship with your employer. A change to 4 weekly pay rather than monthly would I feel benefit all. Those employees affected by the increase in NI would feel happier which might benefit the employer but also from the employer's point of view there is an employers national insurance threshold so if the employee pays less they also pay less. From this point of view you are helping employees and employer.

Thank you again, This is something I will look into before I meet with my management. Your a complete star :beer:

System

The problem is that your calculations are wrong. The weekly/monthly thresholds are based on an annual allowance. Even if it were the case that an employee has paid more tax at any point during the year, they are still entitled to refund.

chrisbur

Walcott wrote: »

The problem is that your calculations are wrong. The weekly/monthly thresholds are based on an annual allowance. Even if it were the case that an employee has paid more tax at any point during the year, they are still entitled to refund.

We are talking about national insurance not tax. NI is based on thresholds which are decided by your pay interval.