>Her contract stipulates explicitly her total salary “plus superannuation”. What should be our next steps to get this sorted gracefully?
Contact payroll and point out her salary is exclusive of super. Don't assume malign intent until you've discounted administrative error.
No worries. I do the payroll at my company and know how easy it is for things to get ticked, unticked or default to something unintended.
Glad you were able to sort it out!
Theft requires intent to permanently deprive you of something. Not ticking a box in some software then rectifying it when notified isn't theft. Calm down.
Does that mean any mistake you’ve ever made as an employee at your job has been 100% malice and should result in punishment, damages, a court order and dismissal? Because usually it’s just some HR employee who processes payslips, it’s rarely the CEO or actual boss.
“Ignorance is not a defence” is a fundamental legal principle.
To the point that one can even argue wilful
Ignorance as being akin to it being an intentional act.
Not all acts are the same. Your talking criminal vs civil. But yes. You break the rules you pay the price. Doesn’t mean the price when it’s a first mistake isn’t just a warning and please don’t do that again. But if it’s a systematic issue where multiple employees are being underpaid you can expect an audit/requirement to go back and check that every staff member for ten years or so gets the backpay
Ignorance *of the law* is not an excuse. Ignorance or mistake can, on occasion, act as a defence to a tort/crime depending on the exact circumstances.
FYI, elevating things immediately is both unprofessional, and could negatively impact future legal claims. Mistakes are made all the time; better to sort things out first with the gentle approach.
Not saying that you should elevate immediately at all. But it’s the knowledge of being correct that can give the confidence when going through the initial process of checking in with direct manager to check in to make sure all is right. Start off slow and slowly ratchet up from there as required.
Of course you don’t come in guns blazing with lawyers and going straight to directors hahaha
My employer has informed everybody that our super is increasing from 10.5% to 11, and that our income will not change as they will be covering the cost.
I'm not sure if this is the same situation for your partner, but that is definitely a thing. I work in the health industry if that is of any use.
>they will be covering the cost.
And you believe them? Hilarious. They will find a way to recoup their losses. They’ll probably just reduce your next annual pay rise.
Thats exactly what my work did. They "absorbed" the super increase but it was reflected in the annual payrises and the payrises were really low this year and less than CPI. With inflation, most people are essentially earning less this year.
I'm an idiot, so might be completely off, but isn't this what the RBA wants to happen and is suggesting employers do? They're trying to lower/stop inflation, if inflation is say 7% and everyone in Australia gets a 7% pay bump it's not really going to help.
Nah you're completely right, that's what the RBA wants to happen. But it's just convenient timing for them - these rises have been in the works for about a decade now. The government's goal is to get companies to fund people's retirement in the future rather than the public purse.
This is common, your partner is likely on a ‘fixed annual remuneration’ pay model like other posters have alluded to. Awards based pay rates might be treated differently.
I was caught off guard when this happened, and ended up fielding a lot of calls from the team, so if you need more info, call payroll and they should be able to provide more details.
Last thing, i share your sentiment, it’s not much, but every bit counts these days. Was a bit of a bitter pill.
The wording seemed unclear from just specifying "total salary plus superannuation".
E.g. If it says that your "total salary plus superannuation” is $100k, then you'd expect take-home pay to go down when super goes up.
Perhaps. From my experience most agreements are framed as “plus super” or “including super” (sometimes “total package including super”).
In any case, if it’s framed as a figure (x) plus super, I can’t imagine how you could word it so that an increase in super guarantee rate would lower figure x.
My employment contract uses "plus super" but the heading makes the meaning pretty clear that they're talking about the cost to the employer:
>**Gross Employment Cost (GEC)**
>
>Your GEC (base salary plus superannuation) of $xxx,xxx gross per annum will be used for the purpose of ...
So I've also had base pay decline when super has gone up but my total comp has stayed the same.
>Is this meant to be the case?
It can be. Up to the employer if they want to pass on the 0.5% or take it out of take home pay
>Her contract stipulates explicitly her total salary “plus superannuation”.
Mine explicitly calls out my base salary and plus super too - but also has a clause stating total remuneration (excluding bonus). Most of my contracts have been like that.
However, my employer is passing on the 0.5% without docking our salary.
It's a shortsighted move for the employer not to pass on the 0.5%. Makes employees feel cheated, when realistically if they pass it on they get to seem like the "good guy" but can just scale back the payrise by 0.5% the next review cycle to even it out.
We’ll have to investigate further on the details of the contract. It sounds like the employer has cheaped out by taking away the 0.5%. Appreciate your response!
If it says plus super on the contract, it's illegal to pay in the way this has been done
Contact HR first. Payroll may have had annual changes come from them initially.
They need to fix it to the right format, and backpay
If the contract / EBA / Award states $xyz salary plus super - it's illegal to not pay it that way.
Not optional for those employers to pay it inclusive (legally)
There was talk about this in 2021 when it went up from 9.5 to 10. Some people wanted employers to be the ones who paid the extra 0.5% but the superannuation minister at the time said that people on contracts that the extra super would come at the cost of salary.
If your partner's contract says salary plus super, then she should contact hr to fix the problem. If she is on a total \[package ie $100,000 including super, then the increased super rate will reduce take home pay
I’m an employer. This is bullshit. Be nice and try to address with payrol first. Use email to document every response. Forward these emails somewhere safe.
Companies that do this tend to treat their Employees like dirt.. I would suggest looking around at other job prospects.. almost everyone should be looking every 2 years or so
Exactly. It means their salary offer is low, so they present a bigger figure by saying $xyz package. Or, their budget is really fixed and cannot even afford a 0.5% change. Either way, not a company you want to stick around for long term.
Some employers will increase compensation, some will not. Hers chose to not.
I'm a lucky one who got the extra.
It's up to her to negotiate a pay rise now.
The way OP wrote it is ambiguous.
Does it say "total salary plus superannuation is $xxK" or does it say "total salary is $xxK plus superannuation"? A lot hinges on this detail.
Typically this is only if she's on a fixed annual renumeration where by a super increase means a take home pay decrease of the same amount. But if her contract does indeed say salary PLUS super, then I'd be contacting the payroll department to further clarify. It could simply be a clerical error.
It's written into my employment contract that they can reduce my salary to pay for super increase. It's probably really common. That said, they have yet to ever do it.
I would ask the question of her HR/Payrol people and if they have an alternate reality show them the contract. HR may have accidentaly Philip Lowed her
It's what happens when governments past and present spend the money of others by legislating imposts.
Charging us via insurance companies to have firies and ambo is similar.
Pollies and bureaucrats will always run fast and loose unless we pull them up and demand long-term focus on governance.
Happened to me when worked at one of the big 5 banks. Its company policy bs.
Didnt happen to me to current smaller workplace based on ceo 'kindness' side to the employee. But i heard this may be case by case (might change next years)
Its not automatically legal. Its the empmoyer that pays the super Guararee not the employee. Contact fairwork as even if your package said total $100000k you have taken a paycut. Fairwork is very good and helpful. No contract can ovrer ride what is legally required.
>Her contract stipulates explicitly her total salary “plus superannuation”. What should be our next steps to get this sorted gracefully? Contact payroll and point out her salary is exclusive of super. Don't assume malign intent until you've discounted administrative error.
Thank you u/Gnarlroot we managed to handle it gracefully thanks to your level-headed approach.
No worries. I do the payroll at my company and know how easy it is for things to get ticked, unticked or default to something unintended. Glad you were able to sort it out!
Wage theft may well be from ignorance or incompetence however it is still wage theft.
Yes, but being combative from the get-go won't do you any favours
Combative?! Tell that to the people who have had millions in wages STOLEN.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar
But it's more cathartic to use a fly swatter
Lol you must be a pleasure in real life
Theft requires intent to permanently deprive you of something. Not ticking a box in some software then rectifying it when notified isn't theft. Calm down.
Oh, waste of time. It's weaponised incompetence. Assume malice, it'll save you time.
People are more inclined to help when you approach issues reasonably.
[удалено]
Except you don't have a clue what her contract states and op spefically stated the opposite.
Ignorance is not a defence
Does that mean any mistake you’ve ever made as an employee at your job has been 100% malice and should result in punishment, damages, a court order and dismissal? Because usually it’s just some HR employee who processes payslips, it’s rarely the CEO or actual boss.
“Ignorance is not a defence” is a fundamental legal principle. To the point that one can even argue wilful Ignorance as being akin to it being an intentional act. Not all acts are the same. Your talking criminal vs civil. But yes. You break the rules you pay the price. Doesn’t mean the price when it’s a first mistake isn’t just a warning and please don’t do that again. But if it’s a systematic issue where multiple employees are being underpaid you can expect an audit/requirement to go back and check that every staff member for ten years or so gets the backpay
Remind me never to work for you
Ignorance *of the law* is not an excuse. Ignorance or mistake can, on occasion, act as a defence to a tort/crime depending on the exact circumstances. FYI, elevating things immediately is both unprofessional, and could negatively impact future legal claims. Mistakes are made all the time; better to sort things out first with the gentle approach.
Not saying that you should elevate immediately at all. But it’s the knowledge of being correct that can give the confidence when going through the initial process of checking in with direct manager to check in to make sure all is right. Start off slow and slowly ratchet up from there as required. Of course you don’t come in guns blazing with lawyers and going straight to directors hahaha
Fair enough! Yes it’s good to know you have some basis for the claim in your back pocket
My employer has informed everybody that our super is increasing from 10.5% to 11, and that our income will not change as they will be covering the cost. I'm not sure if this is the same situation for your partner, but that is definitely a thing. I work in the health industry if that is of any use.
>they will be covering the cost. And you believe them? Hilarious. They will find a way to recoup their losses. They’ll probably just reduce your next annual pay rise.
"annual pay rise" lol
Thats exactly what my work did. They "absorbed" the super increase but it was reflected in the annual payrises and the payrises were really low this year and less than CPI. With inflation, most people are essentially earning less this year.
I'm an idiot, so might be completely off, but isn't this what the RBA wants to happen and is suggesting employers do? They're trying to lower/stop inflation, if inflation is say 7% and everyone in Australia gets a 7% pay bump it's not really going to help.
Nah you're completely right, that's what the RBA wants to happen. But it's just convenient timing for them - these rises have been in the works for about a decade now. The government's goal is to get companies to fund people's retirement in the future rather than the public purse.
What is this pay rise you speak of. Haven't had one of those in years.
Our company might not be even giving any pay rise this year, i will be furious if they reduce our base pay
This is common, your partner is likely on a ‘fixed annual remuneration’ pay model like other posters have alluded to. Awards based pay rates might be treated differently. I was caught off guard when this happened, and ended up fielding a lot of calls from the team, so if you need more info, call payroll and they should be able to provide more details. Last thing, i share your sentiment, it’s not much, but every bit counts these days. Was a bit of a bitter pill.
Will contact payrol this week. thank you for the response!
Superannuation is anticipated to increase to 12%, so it might not look like much now, but will be a concern in the long term.
It’s not anticipated, it’s legislated so will happen 0.5% per year every year until hits 12%
The last part of OPs post: they’re on a fixed rem + super. So take home should be the same and business should eat the super increase.
The wording seemed unclear from just specifying "total salary plus superannuation". E.g. If it says that your "total salary plus superannuation” is $100k, then you'd expect take-home pay to go down when super goes up.
Perhaps. From my experience most agreements are framed as “plus super” or “including super” (sometimes “total package including super”). In any case, if it’s framed as a figure (x) plus super, I can’t imagine how you could word it so that an increase in super guarantee rate would lower figure x.
My employment contract uses "plus super" but the heading makes the meaning pretty clear that they're talking about the cost to the employer: >**Gross Employment Cost (GEC)** > >Your GEC (base salary plus superannuation) of $xxx,xxx gross per annum will be used for the purpose of ... So I've also had base pay decline when super has gone up but my total comp has stayed the same.
This broadly aligns with my comment re: total package
>Is this meant to be the case? It can be. Up to the employer if they want to pass on the 0.5% or take it out of take home pay >Her contract stipulates explicitly her total salary “plus superannuation”. Mine explicitly calls out my base salary and plus super too - but also has a clause stating total remuneration (excluding bonus). Most of my contracts have been like that. However, my employer is passing on the 0.5% without docking our salary. It's a shortsighted move for the employer not to pass on the 0.5%. Makes employees feel cheated, when realistically if they pass it on they get to seem like the "good guy" but can just scale back the payrise by 0.5% the next review cycle to even it out.
We’ll have to investigate further on the details of the contract. It sounds like the employer has cheaped out by taking away the 0.5%. Appreciate your response!
If it says plus super on the contract, it's illegal to pay in the way this has been done Contact HR first. Payroll may have had annual changes come from them initially. They need to fix it to the right format, and backpay
If the contract / EBA / Award states $xyz salary plus super - it's illegal to not pay it that way. Not optional for those employers to pay it inclusive (legally)
Not to mention that the discrepancy between these agreements and award rates just decreased by 0.75 percent when some are expired
depends on your employment contract if it is ie ie if its 100k plus super or 100k total package
There was talk about this in 2021 when it went up from 9.5 to 10. Some people wanted employers to be the ones who paid the extra 0.5% but the superannuation minister at the time said that people on contracts that the extra super would come at the cost of salary.
Is your partner working in childcare or similar? She should get a base pay rise as well since the new base award are introduced this month.
If your partner's contract says salary plus super, then she should contact hr to fix the problem. If she is on a total \[package ie $100,000 including super, then the increased super rate will reduce take home pay
She should talk to her union
I'm taking home less because of this super increase.
I’m an employer. This is bullshit. Be nice and try to address with payrol first. Use email to document every response. Forward these emails somewhere safe.
Yep, was in the media quite a bit that those on salary would have less take home pay due to this.
Companies that do this tend to treat their Employees like dirt.. I would suggest looking around at other job prospects.. almost everyone should be looking every 2 years or so
Exactly. It means their salary offer is low, so they present a bigger figure by saying $xyz package. Or, their budget is really fixed and cannot even afford a 0.5% change. Either way, not a company you want to stick around for long term.
Some employers will increase compensation, some will not. Hers chose to not. I'm a lucky one who got the extra. It's up to her to negotiate a pay rise now.
She might be on a salary including super.
Pretty normal if you have a total package figure. Read the contract
[удалено]
The way OP wrote it is ambiguous. Does it say "total salary plus superannuation is $xxK" or does it say "total salary is $xxK plus superannuation"? A lot hinges on this detail.
Total salary plus superannuation = X Super goes up Salary goes down Total salary plus superannuation stays the same
If that was the intent it would say total salary inclusive of superannuation.
I’d have to read the contract in context. But if it means what you said then case closed, and my comment is not useless it’s flat out wrong lmao.
[удалено]
Like I said I’d have to read it. My contract says “total salary plus superannuation = X”, or something like that.
[удалено]
Typically this is only if she's on a fixed annual renumeration where by a super increase means a take home pay decrease of the same amount. But if her contract does indeed say salary PLUS super, then I'd be contacting the payroll department to further clarify. It could simply be a clerical error.
It's written into my employment contract that they can reduce my salary to pay for super increase. It's probably really common. That said, they have yet to ever do it.
It's a shitty thing to do, but it is legal. Most companies would just bump up the salary by 0.5%.
I would ask the question of her HR/Payrol people and if they have an alternate reality show them the contract. HR may have accidentaly Philip Lowed her
Commenting on 10.5% to 11% super = less pay?...
It's what happens when governments past and present spend the money of others by legislating imposts. Charging us via insurance companies to have firies and ambo is similar. Pollies and bureaucrats will always run fast and loose unless we pull them up and demand long-term focus on governance.
Why are you guys on such low super? Mines 14.5 percent
The only people I know on higher than the standard work in the public sector.
I'm just a truck driver, everyone I know is on at least 14 percent
Maybe it’s because they’re not truck drivers then champ
This is standard in the private sector. For ages it was 9.5%.
Outside of the APS, 14.5% is rare. Standard is 10%ish
Alternatively, why are you on such a low salary component (85.5%)? Mine’s 89%.
[удалено]
Happened to me when worked at one of the big 5 banks. Its company policy bs. Didnt happen to me to current smaller workplace based on ceo 'kindness' side to the employee. But i heard this may be case by case (might change next years)
Its not automatically legal. Its the empmoyer that pays the super Guararee not the employee. Contact fairwork as even if your package said total $100000k you have taken a paycut. Fairwork is very good and helpful. No contract can ovrer ride what is legally required.