I’m sorry, I still can’t see the advantage to do four times a weekly calculation instead of one monthly.
Yes, I was assuming salary instead of hours calculated (because that’s what I’,m used to), and yes, most big companies use of course software for this.
There’s still a non-zero amount of time and work for the HR person involved: sick days and vacation days have to be entered for some employees before you can start the run.
Well, it was the other way round - security measures and hassle for cash payout on payday was a cost factor that switching to transfer eliminated.
The monthly statement of wage is sent by mail and needs no security.
Are the weekly wage statements and checks in the US sent by normal mail, or do they need special protection because a check is like cash and could be stolen?
No, I meant the bank charging the company (employer) for doing too many out-going transactions. Some banks have an account model where the amount of out-transfers per month is limited. (Not counting automatic fixed transfers, deposits or withdrawals). The reasoning is
a) every manual move means tellers the bank needs to have
b) every negative move from the account means that the bank has less money to speculate with and needs to hold more money in reserve to cover this.
True, most banks have now realized that this model aggravates the customer more than it’s worth, and with telephone banking (mostly with voice-recognition software to computer) and internet banking, most banks are already saving a bunch on tellers compared to two decades two anyway.
And I don’t know the rules for business accounts.
But generally, I wonder that the banks don’t mind doing 4 seperate transactions times employee for the company instead of one per month.
My observation is that a lot of companies, especially service companies like stores, no longer have fixed schedules. Many of the workers are part-time, the schedule changes frequently, and payroll is a pain no matter how often it’s run. Telling someone they will have to wait another 4 weeks because there was a typo in the hours register is not good for part-time, low wage employees.
Ah, OK, now I take your point. I’m not an HR person so take it with a grain of salt, but: even if there is a bit of extra cost involved, I imagine it’s worth it to the company in that it’s a relatively cheap way of boosting morale. After all, I think I can safely assert that most people would prefer to be paid on a weekly cycle than monthly. It also means that new workers don’t have to wait so long before receiving their first payment.
I haven’t been paid by check in so long that I don’t know the answer. I don’t think employers usually mail paychecks individually; IME when I used to be paid by check, the check was physically handed to me by someone at the office. But when the checks are transported from the bank or payroll processing firm to the workplace, that’s usually done by armored carrier.
No, I meant the bank charging the company (employer) for doing too many out-going transactions. Some banks have an account model where the amount of out-transfers per month is limited. (Not counting automatic fixed transfers, deposits or withdrawals). The reasoning is
a) every manual move means tellers the bank needs to have
b) every negative move from the account means that the bank has less money to speculate with and needs to hold more money in reserve to cover this.
True, most banks have now realized that this model aggravates the customer more than it’s worth, and with telephone banking (mostly with voice-recognition software to computer) and internet banking, most banks are already saving a bunch on tellers compared to two decades two anyway.
And I don’t know the rules for business accounts.
But generally, I wonder that the banks don’t mind doing 4 seperate transactions times employee for the company instead of one per month.
[/QUOTE]
Really? That surprises me. So both companies that employ and companies that get paid for bills (rent, power, water, insurance etc.) stick to weekly instead of monthly because the employees prefer it that way?
Huh. Colour me surprised. Here, everything is paid monthly, even part-time/ hourly employees. I haven’t asked around, but my impression is that people would resent this and see it as nannying - “You don’t think I’m able to budget my money to last all month?” Because it only comes up for those people who do have trouble managing their money (not only wage, though, mostly assistance for feeble-minded) and are helped by a social worker. These often say “It would be better for our clientele to be paid a small sum weekly instead of a big sum monthly, then they could handle things better themselves.”
Well, a normal mid-level employee will have sufficient funds (see above 2-3 net months wages) in their account to buffer job changes.
For smaller, low-level / hourly workers, the employer often pays an advance in the first week of the estimated wage, which is then subtracted in the full detailed pay statement at the end of the month.
No. Utilities, rent/mortgage, insurance, and so on, are usually billed monthly[sup]1[/sup], but wages and salaries are often paid weekly. Bi-weekly and semi-monthly are also fairly common, but I’ve never heard of a typical private-sector employer that paid out salaries monthly. The big exception to this is government workers, often including teachers and employees at state universities, who often are paid monthly.
It’s not just about overspending low wage workers who don’t know how to budget; there’s also the consideration that the more prudent and/or higher paid workers prefer greater control over their money, and might reasonably ask how long the employer should get to keep it after they owe it to you. It may be a cultural thing as much as anything else. I could elaborate on this but it wouldn’t be appropriate for GQ.
This kind of thing is practically unknown here in the private sector; but may be more common among public sector employers. I did avail myself of it once, working at UCLA as a graduate teaching assistant.
[sup]1[/sup]Some insurance companies are known for screwy payment schedules that work out to less than once a month–e.g. you pay in for each of the first four months, then skip two months. After that the policy is renewed for another six months and the cycle repeats.
Wait a moment. If Rent is 500 per month, paid at the beginning of the month, and salary is paid 250 weekly, then you need a buffer, too. Or is Rent etc. paid at the end of the month, too? Most landlords want rent at the first of month.
But my salary is monthly, so the employer doesn’t keep it any longer than he should. Do you mean contracts - oh wait you don’t have those? - that negotiations are made for weekly salary? And the other usage is yearly salary?
Yes, it’s a bit difficult for me to understand the different culture there.