Paid below the National Minimum Wage!

[Martin Walsh]

No the the 1 in 6 is not an option under DM26 only the 2 in 5 option is in play.

[Perseus]

I don’t think people are entitled to it, but as sure as night follows day people will accept the problem this has thrown up if it falls into their lap. How many of the people getting the extra payment are going to refuse it?

[goldy2007]

No the the 1 in 6 is not an option under DM26 only the 2 in 5 option is in play.

Thanks Martin

[Hitcher]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

[Jonathan Alsatian]

Martin, you said these payments only apply to old contracts. That seems quite strange. Our office has new entrants on Wally week attendance patterns and obviously new entrants get a lower hourly rate than old contracts. So therefore surely HMRC would deem them to be even further below the NMW?

[loyalsnail]

Martin, you said these payments only apply to old contracts. That seems quite strange. Our office has new entrants on Wally week attendance patterns and obviously new entrants get a lower hourly rate than old contracts. So therefore surely HMRC would deem them to be even further below the NMW?

All employees have to receive sufficient pay in a single pay period.

For a weekly paid employee that's a single week, meaning unless it's their week off a weekly paid employee on a Wallington will have worked more hours than paid for. If their rest week falls outside the pay period then a company actually has the following week to "self correct" through normal payroll. So a weekly Wallington worker will not need a compliance payment for a week in which the following week is their week off.

For a monthly paid employee its a single month that is looked at, meaning if their rest week falls in that month (which it more than likely will), monthly employees on a Wallington will not have worked more hours than paid for. If their rest week falls outside the pay period then a company actually has the following month to "self correct" through normal payroll. Every Wallington worker will have at least one week off within a two month period, so the impact of the imbalance in weekly working hours is reduced and, whilst some employees will still work more hours than paid, the fact that the hourly rate is set above nmw means that there is some breathing space before a compliance payment is required.

[Perseus]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

Positive.
As soon as you hit £54 of weekly deductions on the left column (AVC, pension, lump sum boosters etc etc) you are below £12.71 per hour.

[loyalsnail]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

Positive.
As soon as you hit £54 of weekly deductions on the left column (AVC, pension, lump sum boosters etc etc) you are below £12.71 per hour.

Pension contributions automatically switch from PSE (Gross deduction) to non-PSE (Net deduction) triggered by a check in payroll designed to prevent gross pay falling below NMW

[Leigho]

What if you’ve opted out of PSE? Does that make a Wallington worker more or less likely to need this payment or does it make no difference?

[loyalsnail]

If you opted out of PSE then your pension contributions are deducted after the NMW checkpoint and are irrelevant.

[Perseus]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

Positive.
As soon as you hit £54 of weekly deductions on the left column (AVC, pension, lump sum boosters etc etc) you are below £12.71 per hour.

Pension contributions automatically switch from PSE (Gross deduction) to non-PSE (Net deduction) triggered by a check in payroll designed to prevent gross pay falling below NMW

Ok got it. It seems the maximum then allowed for an AVC etc is around 10%?

[TopperGas]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

Positive.
As soon as you hit £54 of weekly deductions on the left column (AVC, pension, lump sum boosters etc etc) you are below £12.71 per hour.

Pension contributions automatically switch from PSE (Gross deduction) to non-PSE (Net deduction) triggered by a check in payroll designed to prevent gross pay falling below NMW

Ok got it. It seems the maximum then allowed for an AVC etc is around 10%?

So what happens next year if an affected employee now sets up an AVC of around 10%, the company will reimburse the AVC's in full as they will take them well below the NMW?

[loyalsnail]

I know some members that pay fairly high % into an AVC which would easily take them under £12.71 when it's basic wage only (what's left of it after pension AVC's etc) divided by 37. Are they likely to be contacted in due course?

Are you 100% sure they are because payroll should have picked that up.

Positive.
As soon as you hit £54 of weekly deductions on the left column (AVC, pension, lump sum boosters etc etc) you are below £12.71 per hour.

Pension contributions automatically switch from PSE (Gross deduction) to non-PSE (Net deduction) triggered by a check in payroll designed to prevent gross pay falling below NMW

Ok got it. It seems the maximum then allowed for an AVC etc is around 10%?

So what happens next year if an affected employee now sets up an AVC of around 10%, the company will reimburse the AVC's in full as they will take them well below the NMW?

If everyone suddenly started setting up 10% AVCs to try and manufacture a payment the business would likely throw some resource into more manual checks on AVCs when they are registered on the People App, in order to ensure they were deducted as non-PSE if appropriate.

It would probably create jobs, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be the goldmine people might expect it to be.