FDC, you are correct on one thing. Poon is the man. Hell of a capper, plus a good man to swill beer with in and around Wrigley field every now and then:toast:
27 pay periods in 2010 if you are paid biweekly on Fridays
- Thread starter Cie
- Start date
FDC, you are correct on one thing. Poon is the man. Hell of a capper, plus a good man to swill beer with in and around Wrigley field every now and then:toast:
FDC,
The short of what I took out of this last month:
I thought along the same line as you, but Cie was adament that the last check of last year (which should be figured in a 26 pay-period structure), was now being figured into THIS YEARS 27 week structure.
I saw it like he had a 26 slice pie, and tried to place one of these pieces into a 27 slot mold. He had to trim some away before it would fit. Seems the company is getting fat on the extra pie.
The short of what I took out of this last month:
I thought along the same line as you, but Cie was adament that the last check of last year (which should be figured in a 26 pay-period structure), was now being figured into THIS YEARS 27 week structure.
I saw it like he had a 26 slice pie, and tried to place one of these pieces into a 27 slot mold. He had to trim some away before it would fit. Seems the company is getting fat on the extra pie.
Because is a 5-year-old's answer.
If you are paid 2K every two weeks in 2011 and 2009, why are you not paid 2K every two weeks in 2010? Why is the weekly rate different when the annual salary is the same?
Because his company is claiming that his yearly salary should be spread out in 27 payments instead of 26, thus lowering his biweekly payout. I basically put into numbers what his company is doing to him to show he is being shorted.
You are right he should get his typical paycheck of 2k in each of the 27 pay periods in 2010.
WTF is your problem, asshole? 5 yr old...really? Please quietly slide back under your rock.
OK. I get that part now.
But based on the example you put, the 27 pay periods come out to 52K and 11 cents. So you get the full salary in 2007.
So I'm still not understanding how his pay is shorted. The pay is 52K/yr in the example, yet you are basing it on 2K/wk to prove he is not getting enough. The pay is not 2K/wk.
My problem is ignorant assholes who can't answer questions w/out a smart-ass remark, most likely because they are too ignorant too or know they are answering incorrectly and therefore they put up a false bravado.
it is HIS thread, been going for over 3 weeks and YOU called him a 5 year old:shrug:
The thread belongs to the community on the message board.
When one acts like a 5-year-old, one will be called one.
I did neither, prick. I simply answered the question as succinctly as possible.
I was not being a smart ass. You have posted in this thread 7 times and each time you acted like a know-it-all. What gives?
Don't get caught up with what happens in the year with 27 payments.
Look at my example of an employee who starts in 2009 and leaves in 2011. They are shorted 1 paycheck. I can't for whatever reason fully explain it but the numbers CLEARLY show that cutting the paychecks to 27 payments to 26 over the course of an employment is in essence stealing.
BTW, my guess is false bravado in attempt to conceal the fact that you are a self-loather. Of course, this is merely my opinion.
I understand your examples. And I am admittedly not a math wiz.
I get paid the same every two weeks, no matter what year the pay date falls in. 27 weeks in a year, 26 weeks, doesn't matter. I am paid at the same rate. Now, my pay rate is based on an hour. I get X/hr.
But if your pay rate is based on a yearly salary of 52/K, shouldn't you be paid on a prorated basis that makes the amount come out to 52K?
By saying he should be paid 2K a week in 2010, that means he would make 54K over the course of the year. But that's not his salary.
OK, I am doing what you said not to do and getting caught up in the 27 weeks. Maybe there's some accounting principles I am not familiar with that throw that out. I don't know.
I'll forgive you based on the fact that you think you're getting cheated out of money and you're probably blasted beyond belief even though the sun's barely set. :drinky:
Please do not thrash me with your fancy words but as I have posted twice already it is something along these lines.
Lets assume he makes 100000 a year. He was supposed to be paid on 26 weeks in 09 which is 3846 biweekly. He was only paid 25 weeks at this number and instead will have 27 checks of 3703 coming in 10. (3703 X 27) + (3846 X 25)= 196150. It should equal 200000 if it is so simple no
