Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Switch in Periods causing less yearly pay

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Switch in Periods causing less yearly pay

    Corporate office in Ohio but legally a Florida company.

    Pay period in Florida was different than the one in Ohio because of merger.

    The company will switch pay periods for the persons in Florida to match the pay period for the persons in Ohio. This switch will cause the pay for the year 2005 to be less than the pay for previous years, one half a pay check. The reason for the less pay is that in Jan 2005 one check will be only for one week which is normally two week pay periods....The last check for 2004 will be Dec 31, two weeks pay. The next pay will be Jan 7 2005 for half of the normal pay or one week. The next pay will be Jan 21, two weeks pay. Then the next will be Feb 4, two weeks pay. Then two weeks pay till end of year.
    We were told that our salary would be effected by the change but I just don't see it when I will only get paid 25 1/2 checks for the year comparied to 26 checks/pay periold. Can the company do this and am I missing something with this formula.

    Thanks for any help.
    Last edited by lhsjax; 12-22-2004, 02:16 PM.

  • #2
    Paychecks

    It is confusing, isn't it? Don't look at this on an annual basis...it will never work out. You should look at it on a week by week basis. The reason I say that is the number of weeks each month (and each year) is different, depending on the day of the week the month (and year) starts.

    If you look at it that way, you aren't being shorted, I believe. For example, I once managed the acquisition of a large company into one of my former employers. We switched that company's employees from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. It looked like the employees were being shorted. However, they weren't. It's just that they received pay at the end of their employment with the merged company while at their former employer, they would not have.

    Does that make sense?
    Lillian Connell

    Forum Moderator
    www.laborlawtalk.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Lillian,

      Although I'm still am not getting it. If you lay out the pay periods on a calendar it comes up to 25 1/2 pays. Now they may have increased the rate which may be what I'm missing. If they did this then yes the amount for my yearly salary should come out right. I'm a salaried employee, which I faild to mention. I sent them an email on Wednesday of last week if they would explain it to me. Tomorrow (Monday) I hoping they have replied to my request.

      Thanks again, but if you can get it accross to me how this works out please do so.

      Comment


      • #4
        Another way of thinking through this

        If you look at the calendar years of 2003, 2004 and 2005, you will note that there is a different number of work days in each month and year. Yet, if a person was at an annual salary of $48,000 for those years, its not that they received less or more at the end of each year, right?

        Does that help?
        Lillian Connell

        Forum Moderator
        www.laborlawtalk.com

        Comment

        The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
        Working...
        X