Unpaid wages at TechTV Network: "It was all lies"

Pay As You Get! In this unforgettable scene from the movie Erin Brockovich (2000), Erin (played by Julia Roberts) goes off on the Ed Masry character (Albert Finney) because she thought he'd stiffed her on the bonus for her work. He'd come into her cubicle area in the firm's offices with her cheque in hand, but before handing it over he'd said he wasn't paying her the amount originally agreed because he thought it 'inappropriate' for the work she'd put in. Erin erupts before she's had a chance to look at the cheque, assuming that what he means is that it's less than she had asked for and considered appropriate for the work she'd put in. She goes ballistic and eviscerates him with some choice epithets. It turns out, though, that he's actually increased her payout to a whopping $2 million. In other words, he thought she was worth more than she actually thought herself, and remunerated her accordingly. And therein lie the lessons I want to draw out in this post: ~ Every hardworking employee needs a boss who sees and places the 'appropriate' value on their worth, and that will often mean more than they place on themselves. ~ Every boss should be that boss for their employees, and that includes you reading this. As an employer or head in the workplace, your job is not to devise means to demean the value your team members bring to the table just to avoid paying them what they're truly worth - but to encourage them to go out and be outstanding in their service to the organisation, while ensuring they get every pay and bonus they deserve, even if they may not see it themselves. ~ When it comes to value for money, bosses and employees should use what I call the 'Pay As You Get' model. The latter should give their best and the former should pay true value or more (never less) for the output they get. 🎊Fun fact, the real Erin Brokovitch after whom the movie was made actually received a massive windfall for her work - $2.5 million, so the movie even understated what a stand-up guy the real Ed Masry was. ©Mogul

I’m still coming across businesses with no employment contracts in place 😭 How do they (and you) know what they’re signing up for?? As an employer you have some stuff to do when someone starts with you. Besides the fact it’s a legal requirement it also makes you look shite as an employer when you don’t have your 💩 together 🤷♀️ Unsure what that is? Here’s a list: 👉 Written Statement of Employment Particulars aka an employment contract – no later than Day One (these aren’t optional anymore). 👉 Right to Work Checks – yes, that passport/share code check matters or you could be looking at a 60k fine PER PERSON you can’t prove! 👉 Payroll Setup – HMRC loves you to get this right. Payslips too. 👉 National Minimum/Living Wage – from the very first hour worked. 👉 Health & Safety Induction – because “mind the step” isn’t enough. 👉 Policies Access – they need to know where to find the rules (grievance, disciplinary, holidays). 💡 Good practice bonus points: inductions, buddy systems, a bit of love and a thought out onboarding process makes them feel they’ve joined the right business 🙄 So, employers – are you ready for Day One? Or is your “welcome pack” still a wing and a prayer and a spare biro? 🖊️😅 #HRGuru #DayOneRights #EmployeeExperience #SMEs

If You’re Working Hard and Still Waiting to Get Paid — Read This. Let’s be real: waiting to get paid for work you’ve already done is one of the most powerless feelings there is. I learned that the hard way this month. A “simple payroll error” turned into a week of silence, finger-pointing, and zero accountability. Here’s what that taught me — and what every worker, especially in retail, marketing, or brand-ambassador roles, needs to know: 💡 1️⃣ Excuses are not updates. If a manager can’t give you a specific date for when your pay is coming, that’s not communication — that’s avoidance. 💡 2️⃣ “We’re working on it” means nothing without proof. Professional companies fix pay errors in days, not weeks. Anything longer is a red flag. 💡 3️⃣ Protect yourself — always. Save your pay stubs, document every message, and don’t be afraid to escalate when no one’s listening. You’re not being “difficult” for expecting to be paid. You’re asking for the bare minimum of respect. If a company can’t deliver that, you owe them nothing — not your time, not your patience, not your silence. We all deserve better than to beg for the money we’ve already earned.

Payday Super – What I Like and What I’m Cautious About Following on from the introduction of the Payday Super legislation to parliament, I've had some time to consider aspects of the new regime I like and some aspects employers and advisers need to be aware of. What I Like: - Qualifying Earnings (QE) replaces OTE and Salary/Wages: This means the same earnings base applies for both SG contributions and the SG charge. For employers with large amounts of overtime or non-OTE payments, this significantly reduces the penalty impact if super is paid late compared to the old system. - Deductibility of late payments: Under the new rules, both late SG contributions and the SG charge itself are tax deductible. This is a big shift from the current system where late super isn’t deductible. - Faster SG charge process: The Commissioner must issue an SG charge statement for any unpaid SG after 28 days from when it’s due. This should speed up enforcement and prevent employers from falling too far behind. - New employee deferrals: Out‑of‑cycle payments and new employees get up to 20 business days from the QE day before SG must be received, providing some breathing room during onboarding and corrections. - First‑year compliance pragmatism: ATO draft PCG 2025/D5 outlines a risk‑based approach that recognizes genuine transition effort. What I’m Cautious About: - Administrative uplift penalty: A 60% uplift applies automatically to SG charge calculations and requires a formal assessment under regulations to determine if it can be repealed. This adds complexity and risk. - Cashflow and working capital pressures: Moving from quarterly to payday contributions will hit businesses that rely on longer cash cycles. - Timing risk: Contributions must be received by the super fund within 7 business days of wage payment, not just paid by the employer. This means reliance on clearing houses and payment systems to move funds quickly. - Application of late payments: Employers can’t choose to apply late super payments to current SG liabilities. Instead they must apply payments to the earliest QE day first. This can trigger further late SG assessments. - SG charge penalty rules: The SG charge penalty cannot be remitted and doubles to 50% if the employer has been liable for the charge in the previous 24 months. So, if an employer has a rough patch and misses obligations over a few consecutive months, they face higher penalties that cannot be waived. (A side note that the initial 25% SG charge penalty likely operates to offset the tax benefit from deductibility of late super and SG Charge payments). These changes are a big step forward for employee retirement outcomes, but they also introduce new compliance and cashflow challenges for employers. Early planning and system updates will be critical.

💰 Turns out I was underpaid (first time on this side of the fence). Very surprised by the remediation attempt. A former employer has informed me that they have identified a historical underpayment and have offered backpay + interest to resolve the issue. So far, so good. They have also asked me to *indemnify them* (+ staff and related bodies corporate) in relation to future claims in exchange for the remediation payment. A release would have been reasonable; an indemnity not so much. Too often the two (markedly different) concepts are conflated. Indemnities in any context are significant; they should not be asked for, offered, or given lightly. To ask a former (underpaid) employee to indemnify you in exchange for payment of their entitlements (which you should have paid them earlier, but, in the next-best-case scenario, must pay them now) is, in my view, a poor strategy that exposes you to significant risk - a shame in this case, where the process has otherwise been gold plated. I have refused my former employer's offer. (Long time drafter, first time recipient of an offer and deed - a good perspective gathering exercise for me.) I remain underpaid, my former employer remains in likely breach of civil penalty provisions of the Fair Work Act. With proper advice, this could have so easily been avoided. If you are dealing with underpayment, please ensure you are seeking qualified advice before proceeding with a remediation program. It doesn't have to (but certainly can) be from me - any properly qualified and experienced employment law, workplace relations and pay remediation expert will do.

Anyone else noticing jobs posted with WIDE ranges in compensation noted, with the addendum that it will be determined not by your skill level, but your geographic location? In other words, they don't believe you should be paid for your contributions or value, but simply as little as they can legally get away with paying you. Businesses are debasing humanity. I don't know when or how people have forgotten that businesses are made up of individuals, that their successes are driven by individuals. For you to say, "I'll pay you $x/hr if you're American, and ($x - $50)/hr if you're Filipino," is blatant discrimination. When businesses look at humans as nothing but costs and expenses, it makes this world not worth living in. It's also why so many people are out of work, because American jobs have all been given away to SE Asia for no reason other than they can be paid less. What happened to social responsibility?? What happened to creating value for people? It used to be you'd commit your life to working with one company, and ride all the waves with them. There was loyalty. Guess why no one is loyal to companies anymore!! Guess why people are demanding much higher wages than ever before! Joining a company used to provide stability, and now it mostly provides risk for employees. The reason people shift to freelancing, and job hop, says nothing about them, and everything about the business landscape. Companies want to have their cake and eat it too, and that's not how it works. Learn how to treat people like people. Humans are not commodities to be used and priced. The C-Suite seems to have forgotten the rest of the world makes 100x less than they do while also working their asses off to make you successful, and need some promises kept in return.

AB 692 (effective January 1, 2026): California’s new ban on most “stay-or-pay” clauses California just tightened its employee-mobility rules again. AB 692 makes it unlawful in employment contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026 to require workers to repay money or trigger debt/penalties if they leave a job. The new law specifically prohibits: 1.        Terms that make continued employment the price of avoiding a repayment. 2.        Clauses that authorize debt collection/acceleration tied to resignation or termination. 3.        Any other penalty, fee, or cost on the worker tied to resignation or termination. The new law does not prohibit: 1.        Tuition reimbursement programs for a transferable credential where the payment: (a) is offered separately from any employment contract; (b) does not require the credential as a condition of employment; (c) specifies the repayment amount before worker agrees to the contract; (d) the repayment amount must not exceed employer’s cost; (e) allows prorated repayment over the required employment period, with no accelerated repayment on early exit; and (f) does not require repayment if the worker is terminated, unless for misconduct. 2.        Signing/retention bonuses (including relocation stipends when structured as discretionary upfront payments) so long as: (a) the repayment terms are in a separate agreement; (b) the employee is informed of the right to consult an attorney and given five business days to do so; (c) repayment for early exit is interest-free, prorated, and tied to a retention period not exceeding two years; (d) the employee may defer receiving payment until completing the full retention period to avoid repayment; and (e) early separation must be voluntary, or due to employee misconduct. What about contracts signed before January 1, 2026? AB 692’s per-se prohibition is prospective, so pre-2026 agreements aren’t covered by the new law, but must still comply with existing laws (such as Business & Professions Code §16600). What can employers do now? 1.        Maintain existing agreements through the end of 2026 subject to review for compliance with existing law. 2.        Redraft any reimbursement/bonus programs to fit AB 692. Happy to share a one-page checklist for HR and Legal on what to revise before year-end. #CaliforniaEmployment #AB692 #EmployeeMobility #HRCompliance #Contracts

𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗧𝗦𝗣 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵? 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁—a𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 Day 16 of the shutdown. I’ve spent the last 48 hours reading Reddit threads Thousands of feds asking the same question: “I𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺… 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘛𝘚𝘗 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩?”undefined Fair question. Wrong assumption. Here’s the truth (backed by law, not hearsay): No—you’re not losing your match forever. But there’s a technical (and financial) catch. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗗𝗗𝗜𝗧 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧: • TSP contributions stop during furlough (no pay = no deductions) • FERS agency matching also stops during furlough • OMB removed references to the 2019 law from Oct 3 shutdown guidance • There’s real uncertainty about how this will shake out 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗗𝗗𝗜𝗧 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚: • “You’ll never get your agency match back” • “Lost contributions are gone forever” • “You can manually make up the difference” These are myths. Here's what the law says: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬: The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. §1341(c)(2)) requires: • Full backpay for furloughed feds • Agencies to submit missed TSP contributions—including the agency match 𝗧𝗦𝗣.𝗴𝗼𝘃 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: “W𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘢𝘺, 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.”undefined So why all the confusion? Because OMB is playing games. They quietly edited their Oct 3 guidance and removed mention of the 2019 law. Now the White House is arguing furloughed workers aren’t guaranteed backpay. That’s legally shaky. Lawmakers like Kaine, Van Hollen, and Murkowski sent a letter on Oct 15 demanding the law be honored. OPM’s Sept guidance still says furloughed employees get full backpay. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗞: If backpay hits in 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲: • Those contributions count toward your 2026 TSP limit—not 2025 • You “lose” 2025 contribution space you can’t get back • TSP uses the year paid, not year earned • No, you can’t make manual “catch-up” contributions—TSP only accepts payroll deductions 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗢: • Know the law is on your side (even if OMB is disputing it) • Plan for delay—backpay could take weeks or months • Boost contributions when pay resumes to recover your portion • Track everything—stubs, notices, emails 𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗢𝗠 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘: You’re not permanently losing your TSP match. The law requires agencies to make you whole—including missed contributions and the agency match—once backpay is issued. This isn’t just about mechanics. It’s about whether OMB follows the law. Heard different? Drop it in the comments. Like if this helped clarify things. Repost to help other feds stay info

"Exile on Main Street isn’t just a Stones record: It’s how a lot of small business employees are probably feeling right about now." "Thanks to the government shutdown, everyone’s looking at a wider batch of jobs data than usual to get a pulse check on the state of US hiring. Enter: ADP’s National Employment Report, released at the start of October, which looks at “anonymized weekly payroll data of more than 26 million private-sector employees in the United States.”" "For Main Street, the report looked bleak. Small businesses, defined by ADP as companies with 49 employees or fewer, shed approximately 40,000 jobs in September, while large businesses, with over 500 employees, gained 33,000." "Rather than a blip, the findings from ADP’s latest report are a telling dispatch about the labor challenges facing small businesses right now, experts say."