Body & Soul1 min ago
Part time pay query
11 Answers
I've recently started a new job, part time, on the 30th July � salary paid, working 18.5 hours per week. I've got my wage slip this morning and I'm convinced I've been underpaid. I've spoken to HR who are adamant I haven't, even though my line manager agrees with me.
They're trying to tell me that my pro-rata pay is divided by 12 months to get my monthly salary, fair enough. But then what they've done is divide that by 31 days of July and multiplied it by the 2 days I've worked. So for example 15000 / 37 * 28.5 = �7500 pro rata per annum. This is a monthly equivalent of �625 and they are trying to pay me �40 for the 2 days worked in July, which I believe is wrong. Surely the daily rate and hourly rate are the same for a part time or full time person, irrespective of how many days a week they work? I work 3 days one week, 2 days the week after, so it's not even as though I work any half days. If someone who worked full time started they would have had �80 so I think they have done it wrong. They are saying that they pay me for days I don't work every month, but that's not true since my salary is pro-rata'd to represent the hours I work. I've worked in payroll before so know what I'm talking about!
Please someone tell me I am right!
They're trying to tell me that my pro-rata pay is divided by 12 months to get my monthly salary, fair enough. But then what they've done is divide that by 31 days of July and multiplied it by the 2 days I've worked. So for example 15000 / 37 * 28.5 = �7500 pro rata per annum. This is a monthly equivalent of �625 and they are trying to pay me �40 for the 2 days worked in July, which I believe is wrong. Surely the daily rate and hourly rate are the same for a part time or full time person, irrespective of how many days a week they work? I work 3 days one week, 2 days the week after, so it's not even as though I work any half days. If someone who worked full time started they would have had �80 so I think they have done it wrong. They are saying that they pay me for days I don't work every month, but that's not true since my salary is pro-rata'd to represent the hours I work. I've worked in payroll before so know what I'm talking about!
Please someone tell me I am right!
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by missspeedy23. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, on the face of it, �40 does seem low for 2 days work!
But I'm confused by your figures. The calculation you give of (�15000/37)*28.5 does not equal �7500!
Can you give us the actual figures to help us understand better.
Let's keep it simple for now and look at hours worked. What's your hourly rate? Multiply it by hours worked over the two days. That's what you should expect to be paid if your pay for the month is supposed to reflect hours worked.
But your employer may just use a monthly rate rather than an hourly rate. It may be that you were just unlucky that you started on the 30th. If you had started on the 28th you may have got paid for more days in July even though 28th and 29th may not have been working days for you.
If you can give exact figures it might help us solve it for you
JB may be right. That was the point I was making- your employer may simply apply a monthly rate and he said you had worked 2/31st of your first month. So you were just unlucky that both days ater you started were working days. If had started in a different month, on a Friday 30th and then you'd have had the 31st off as Saturday maybe you'd still have got paid 2/31.
Seems odd to me though to do it that way- hours is a much better system- after all holiday entitlements should be done in hours
You'll have a better idea when you've been paid for August
Seems odd to me though to do it that way- hours is a much better system- after all holiday entitlements should be done in hours
You'll have a better idea when you've been paid for August
Sorry, it was meant to read x 18.5.
That's the way they explained it and said if they'd started my employment on the Monday, even though I wasn't contracted to work til the Weds, they'd have paid me Mon and Tues too, which seems really stupid to me! It sounds as though that's their policy and it is right but I feel like I've been well and truly ripped off!!
They don't calculate on an hourly rate basis but I think they should do it on a daily rate.
Well miffed with them!
That's the way they explained it and said if they'd started my employment on the Monday, even though I wasn't contracted to work til the Weds, they'd have paid me Mon and Tues too, which seems really stupid to me! It sounds as though that's their policy and it is right but I feel like I've been well and truly ripped off!!
They don't calculate on an hourly rate basis but I think they should do it on a daily rate.
Well miffed with them!
If it's monthly pay then the amount paid each month doesn't depend on the number of working days worked.
If you annual salary is �15000 then you'd get �1250 a month
Some months like February you might only work 20 days and in July you could work 23 days, but you'd get the same pay each month- �1250.
Similarly if you start half way through a month you'd get half a month's pay. (�625)
In your case you joined on 30th July and got 2/31sts of a month's pay.
If you annual salary is �15000 then you'd get �1250 a month
Some months like February you might only work 20 days and in July you could work 23 days, but you'd get the same pay each month- �1250.
Similarly if you start half way through a month you'd get half a month's pay. (�625)
In your case you joined on 30th July and got 2/31sts of a month's pay.
I agree with you, Miss Speedy. There were 23 working days in July and you worked 2 of them. You therefore should have been paid 2/23rds of your 'normal' monthly pay. That's the way it has worked for monthly paid staff in every organisation I've been involved in HR with.
The logic of this is refutable, so try this argument if necessary with your employer: - say the 1st of a month falls on a Saturday and a new employee starts at the start of the month. The first day at work is Monday 3rd. Is the implication that the employee only gets 29/31sts of that months salary? - I don't think so - they get the full month paid. Same logic applies to you.
The logic of this is refutable, so try this argument if necessary with your employer: - say the 1st of a month falls on a Saturday and a new employee starts at the start of the month. The first day at work is Monday 3rd. Is the implication that the employee only gets 29/31sts of that months salary? - I don't think so - they get the full month paid. Same logic applies to you.
Yes, I agree with Buildersmate that 2/23rds is the fairest measure. (Although I can see problem even with that- e.g. someone who joins on 27 feb gets 2/20 of a monthwhereas if they start on 30 Jul they get a lower figure of 2/23.)
I was just trying to establish how the employer could have arrived at the low payment you got.
From your figures can you tell whether you got 2/23, 2/31 or something else?
If you have been paid 2/31 or anything less tha 2/23 you could query it, although of course you may feel it's unwise to rock the boat too much so early in your career. But it's probably worth making a helpful suggestion that the current way of working it out is wrong and they perhaps ought to get it right for future employees.
I've never been a fan of monthly pay. It gets even more complicated when an employee works different hours on different days and joins part way through a month, and I'm sure many employers get the figures wrong. Hours worked is a method that's less likely to lead to errors.
I was just trying to establish how the employer could have arrived at the low payment you got.
From your figures can you tell whether you got 2/23, 2/31 or something else?
If you have been paid 2/31 or anything less tha 2/23 you could query it, although of course you may feel it's unwise to rock the boat too much so early in your career. But it's probably worth making a helpful suggestion that the current way of working it out is wrong and they perhaps ought to get it right for future employees.
I've never been a fan of monthly pay. It gets even more complicated when an employee works different hours on different days and joins part way through a month, and I'm sure many employers get the figures wrong. Hours worked is a method that's less likely to lead to errors.
1 to 11 of 11
