Companies withholding 1st week of wages

franco_22 · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:03

oneale90 said:
As has been said, many times, its common practise due to the sheer unreliability of people, unfortunately !

Common practise here maybe... it's illegal in the US and Canada and probably a lot of other countries too. People are quite naive if they think this isn't just a scam in place to borrow millions of pounds interest free from employees. I suppose if someone is dead or stays in the company until retirement age they might never see that money or have to wait 20+ years for it. I'm off to get my tin foil hat now as I seem to be the only one who is shocked by this...

oneale90 · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:12

franco_22 said:
Common practise here maybe... it's illegal in the US and Canada and probably a lot of other countries too.

But you are not in the US / Canada or any other part of the world ?

I don't see what your deal is with this whole "Borrowing Tax Free Money" issue is. Its common practise, you get the money back as and when ?

Hyper · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:14

This is normal I thought, a week in hand which you receive as your last pay when you leave.

EdGey · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:16

I'm kind of with the OP.

Customary or not, I don't see why its necessary..

Woden · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:21

This is completely normal. You are just working a week in hand, you get it back when you leave. No matter how you leave, resign/fired/retirement/whatever.

Not only does it make sure you actually work your notice, it makes pay queries easier, because they get longer to fix it.

Due to how my contract has changed over the years at the same place, I am now 3 weeks in hand. I work a lot of overtime at short notice and its just a nice time buffer to fix (admittedly only 2 in 13 years) errors. It will also be nice to get almost a double wage when I do quit!

Wilderbeast · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:22

Contrary to popular belief, working a week in hand is mostly for payroll's benefit.

Surveyor · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:22

EdGey said:
I'm kind of with the OP.

Customary or not, I don't see why its necessary..

Companies are usually not going to pay you in advance for work you haven't done.

They pay you for the work you did in the previous week and can then include any adjustments for overtime etc.

Castiel · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:29

EdGey said:
I'm kind of with the OP.

Customary or not, I don't see why its necessary..

Because payroll is not completed in a few minutes at the end of the week....you work a week and then payroll is able to see how many hours you worked/what is owed to you, it is then put through the PAYE system, deductions made, verified and then transferred into your bank via whatever method, normally BACS.....this affects weekly workers more than monthly or salaried workers.

If you were being paid on the Friday of the week you worked then Payroll would have to make assumptions on the hours worked etc as it takes a minimum of 3 days to do the BACS transfer, let alone the actual calculation of what is owed....

They are not actually holding back a weeks pay as the OP thinks, they are simply paying it a week after you earned...when you leave you will recieve either two weeks pay or will recieve a weeks pay the week after you leave.......

Contrary to what the OP has said being paid in arrears is not illegal in the United States or Canada...it is a general practice there also, the difference is that in the UK you can have multiples of arrears, for example a weekly paid worker can be paid two weeks in arrears...but in the US/Canada a weekly worker must be paid by the end of or on the normal pay day of the following week from that worked....

rimmeruk · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:30

Surveyor said:
Companies are usually not going to pay you in advance for work you haven't done.

They pay you for the work you did in the previous week and can then include any adjustments for overtime etc.

Sounds more like: work for 1month +1 week, get 1 months pay. Continue to get monthly pay until month you leave, whereby you then get last months pay + 1st weeks pay.

I dont think the OP was suggesting he should get paid before he does the work?

Dave M · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:32

Wilderbeast said:
Contrary to popular belief, working a week in hand is mostly for payroll's benefit.

what's the popular belief?

franco_22 · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:34

I'm quite aware no company is going to pay you in advance for work you haven't done yet. I'm talking about, for example, say you start working on the 1st of January. The companies cut off date is on the 21st and you get paid on the 28th.

Instead of being paid from the 1st until the 21st, you will only be paid from the 7th until the 21st and the company will hold the first weeks pay.

And no I do not agree that a company can hold hundreds of thousands of unpaid wages interest free as if their employees are some sort of personal bank and quite frankly I don't understand how people are okay with that just "because" it's common practise.

I'm sure if someone went back 300 years and told a farm owner that uses slave labour that what they are doing is wrong they could have told you it's common practise as well.

Dave M · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:36

franco_22 said:
if someone stays with them for 10 years, they get to keep that money interest free for 10 years?

No, 1 week, it's always 1 week. You get paid for your first week of work at the end of the 2nd week, you get paid for the 2nd week of work at the end of the 3rd, and so on.

Can't believe you're making such a thing about it, it's just the most practical way of doing it.

Dave M · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:39

franco_22 said:
for example, say you start working on the 1st of January. The companies cut off date is on the 21st and you get paid on the 28th.

Instead of being paid from the 1st until the 21st, you will only be paid from the 7th until the 21st and the company will hold the first weeks pay.

If you are correct I'd talk to somebody about it, perhaps a solicitor, as I'd expect that was an unlawful deduction. What does your employment contract say about it?

Castiel · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:44

franco_22 said:
I'm quite aware no company is going to pay you in advance for work you haven't done yet. I'm talking about, for example, say you start working on the 1st of January. The companies cut off date is on the 21st and you get paid on the 28th.

Instead of being paid from the 1st until the 21st, you will only be paid from the 7th until the 21st and the company will hold the first weeks pay.

And no I do not agree that a company can hold hundreds of thousands of unpaid wages interest free as if their employees are some sort of personal bank and quite frankly I don't understand how people are okay with that just "because" it's common practise.

I'm sure if someone went back 300 years and told a farm owner that uses slave labour that what they are doing is wrong they could have told you it's common practise as well.

How exactly are you being paid? Weekly/Monthy, what are dates you started and when is your payday, and which period are you paid for?

Frozennova · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:45

You get paid for work you do not work you might do.

What happens if they pay you the weeks wages but don't turn up for two days, theyve then got to recover the wages from you.

EdGey · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:50

Ok well it seems there is a good reason for it, so there is no issue

Name · 15 Oct 2012 at 15:53

Look on the bright side, at the end of your time with that employer, you'll receive an additional paycheck one week after you've finished.

Just the "Arrears" catching up with itself.