Karma is a removed!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

JasonDJ did a good job at explaining the what, the why would be down to cost-cutting. There are fixed costs associated with putting out payroll (beyond man hours required, there are processing fees etc.); so opting for 2/month instead of fortnightly saves you ~10% in fixed costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    why not jush do it once a month then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In general, because the transition puts too much of a financial strain on hourly/wage staff - they tend to live paycheque to paycheque and would struggle to be able to wait an additional 2-3 weeks for their pay to come through.

    Besides risking possible staff revolt, it would also make hiring staff much more difficult if new employees learned during induction they might have to wait 5 weeks to be paid!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ...then how come it works everywhere else?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    paying out once a month. even when i worked an hourly job at a restaurant we got paid monthly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I guess it depends on what is seen as the norm in a particular country. In Australia, it’s most common for hourly wages to be paid either weekly or fortnightly - and I believe it’s a similar case in North America also.

    Given they only the companies stand to benefit from paying employees less frequently, it makes it harder for those companies to compete for quality labour (without then offering a higher hourly rate, negating any benefit for them to do so).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    it also benefits the workers though. that's why unions push for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    How does being paid less frequently benefit workers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    it helps structure personal finances since bills are always due at the end of the month. it also incentivices putting more into savings. at least that's how i understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Counter-point: it actually robs those employees from learning the ability to save, and denies them (albeit small, incremental) opportunities to earn interest.

    You just made me recall one of my gripes with the finance department at my previous job; they would withhold posting an invoice until the week after it was due, and considered it good business. Why? Because that 100K would sit in their bank account for 5-7 more business days accumulating interest at ~5%.

    It’s no different to only paying employees monthly; the company profits from withholding payment for as long as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    well i don't know too much about this other than the fact that we do it because labour unions.

    also, that anecdote describes a breach of contract. that's why late fees are so large.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You’d be surprised just how common ‘breaches of contract’ like this are, especially among SMEs.

    If the supplier knows that the customer has a tendency to pay invoices EOM +35 rather than EOM+30, it’s not worth the cost to pursue legally - especially as doing so would risk them losing a client.

    The first secret of business is to collect money as quickly as possible, and avoid paying out as long as possible, to profit off the arbitrage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    here everyone just stopped doing business with us when the company i was at tried that. we were about to go bankrupt so they tried to squeeze more money out and as a result everyone just left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Total stab in the dark, but I assume you’re somewhere in continental Europe?

    Seems like your businesses have a lot more scruples, morals and ethics than ours do!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    well not continental, but yeah. i wouldn't want to work for a company without some sort of moral code. it's all written down it our bylaws how we should act towards customers, governments, prospects, etc. to not break any laws and always compete fairly.

  • source
  • parent