weekly - monthly pay

tomtontom

Simon_Stir wrote: »

Not long enough. No its no worth losing my job over, I wouldn't push it that far anyway. I more disappointed in the company for standing there and saying things like "Some of you may well be better of because of it" and "most of our staff will pay less NI" In some cases the later is true, But they are counting on most people just nodding their head in agreement and not taking the time to think, To me that is disgusting behaviour.

If it doesn't impact you, then leave it alone. The employer has a very simple way to deal with this problem if you complain, and it is not by changing their plans.

BillJones

Simon_Stir wrote: »

I more disappointed in the company for standing there and saying things like "Some of you may well be better of because of it" and "most of our staff will pay less NI" In some cases the later is true, But they are counting on most people just nodding their head in agreement and not taking the time to think, To me that is disgusting behaviour.

But they are right. If your hours are at all variable, then the fractional variance is greater for weekly pay, meaning that more people who average below the threshold will have some weeks which they are above it. When you switch to monthly, they'll be significantly less likely to end up paying anything.

Simon_Stir

BillJones wrote: »

But they are right. If your hours are at all variable, then the fractional variance is greater for weekly pay, meaning that more people who average below the threshold will have some weeks which they are above it. When you switch to monthly, they'll be significantly less likely to end up paying anything.

Actually Iv done the calculations for hourly pay paid both monthly and weekly, Based on 12months worth of wages, They are right in one instance in five. 32 hour working week is 4p a year better off than if they were weekly pay. In all other instance regarding eight hour shifts that statement is wrong.

BillJones

Simon_Stir wrote: »

Actually Iv done the calculations for hourly pay paid both monthly and weekly, Based on 12months worth of wages, They are right in one instance in five. 32 hour working week is 4p a year better off than if they were weekly pay. In all other instance regarding eight hour shifts that statement is wrong.

I don't agree, and you seem to be missing the point that they were likely referring to the effect that variable hours worked per week will be far more harmful for people paid weekly than monthly.

Why not post your full workings, so that someone can correct you if there is an error?

Simon_Stir

BillJones wrote: »

I don't agree, and you seem to be missing the point that they were likely referring to the effect that variable hours worked per week will be far more harmful for people paid weekly than monthly.

Why not post your full workings, so that someone can correct you if there is an error?

Because I'm not sure I actually want my real wage discussed at length by an entire forum of people. That's a little personal

Takeaway_Addict

I agree with mountain out of a molehill.....it's a sensible move by the company to move to monthly pay.

molerat

I can see what the OP is saying. The company will be paying monthly, the last Friday in each month, so tax and NI will be on a monthly basis. Cut off is the Friday before pay day so there will be some 5 week pay periods with only 4.3 weeks of NI allowance. Anyone who does pay NI will not really be affected but those who do not could be pushed into it, they can currently earn £153 per week without paying NI but under the new scheme there will be occasional months where they will only be able to earn the equivalent of £132.60 (663/5) per week before paying NI. In those months someone earning £152 per week will pay £11.64 in NI. Conversely in the 4 week months they can earn £165.75 per week so some will be better off. The company should go to a proper monthly pay system and not this half arsed weekly bodge.