Effective date of annual increases

MrCreosote

Our annual increases are effective January 1, 2003. For our hourly employees there is a 5-day lag between the end of a pay period and pay day. So for the pay period ending Jan 13 and paid today the increase was applied to the hours for 8 of the 10 days. I have an employee arguing that the increase should have been included in the Jan 3 checks since that pay date is after the effective increase date. My position is that the January 3 pay is for hours worked in the pay period ending December 29 and since all of those hours were prior to the effective date the increase does not apply.

He insists that his previous employer did it his way. I find it hard to believe. Does anyone do it that way or know of anyone who does?

tjp

No to both

Anita

I also say no to both.

And if the employee liked the way his former employer paid him, why is it his former employer?

MrCreosote

Thanks for your replies. The employee who debated the point is up for a low-level promotion, and this was my real concern: Is he unable to differentiate what is relevant and what isn't? (mildly bad) Or does he just make things up out of thin air to suit his purposes? (really bad)

Don D

Or does he have really weak judgemental and reasoning skills, TERRIBLY BAD. This is something that, even though he did not rationalize it properly initially, with a minimum of thought and a review of a calendar, he should have quickly seen the error in his thought process.

NaeNae55

There are idiots everywhere you go. Idiot managers who pay when they shouldn't (or perhaps should, but don't explain the facts fully to their employees) and make non-idiot employers look bad, and idiot employees who don't know the difference between idiot managers and non-idiot managers.

Good luck!

ritaanz

Nae, are you having a bad day? Just a guess.

Theresa Gegen TX

The company can do whatever it wants. If the employees were told that the pay raises were effective Jan 1, that is when they were effective. Some other employer might have backdated them or included the whole pay period for ease of accounting, but there is no legal requirement to do so.

NaeNae55

Sorry. Ran out of Estroven. Back on track now. x:-)

Parabeagle

We also have a lag-time between end of pay period and check date and would handle increases just the way you are doing.

sandra_d

For the very reason you describe, I phrase any language about pay increases something like, "The increase will be effective beginning with time worked on January 1, 2003."

Lori B

We always tie our raises to the beginning of a pay cycle. Why sprain our brains about which hours are paid at a what rate within same cycle...

MrCreosote

That would make it easier, but you would begin the increase in the pay cycle including the effective date, right?

Lori B

The effective date of the raise must tie to day one in the pay cycle for us. For ex, if our goal was to make raises effective Jan 1, we tell ees it is effective in the nearest paycycle that starts on or after Jan 1. Nobody complains so long as you make it clear up front.

E Wart

Are you trying to find out if someone else does it the way your employee said or if you are doing it right? I don't know what difference it makes as to what your employee said. Just explain that that might be the way his former employer did it, but not how your company calculates pay changes.
However, you do need to make sure your descripton of salary changes reflects what you do. It sounds as if you pay a week in arrears and that you have the increase take affect for time worked on the first full pay period of the year (or month possibly in some cases). Just make sure you do what you say you do.
E Wart