Payroll not processing overtime and subsistence due to staff shortages

BrianD3

Posters are being very defensive of the payroll manger here. It is very likely that the payroll manager is at least partly responsible for this mess. In a dysfunctional organisation like the HSE, the personality and competence of an individual manager can make the difference between a functional service and chaos.

Let's assume that the payroll department is short staffed. Mary is responsible for processing overtime and subsistence. Everyone knows that there is going to be a delay replacing Mary if she leaves. It is a manager's job to recognise the precariousness of the situation and plan ahead for Mary leaving. Part of that role would be managing upwards effectively, laying out the situation to his boss, fighting for extra resources, being convincing and not letting it go.

Also there is almost always scope for doing things in a more efficient way. E.g. Mary enters figures manually in an Excel spreadsheet because that's the way she has always done it. Maybe she can be provided with a macro/VBA/formula that saves a lot of time. Now if Mary leaves, perhaps another member of staff can keep things ticking over.

It isn't rocket science (or heart surgery) that we're talking about here.

The problem is that many managers are completely incapable of doing any of the above. They could be in a grade that doesn't get paid for overtime so they don't give a crap about whether the paramedics get their overtime or not.

Adopting a "keep your head down" management style, not communicating effectively and being reactive instead of proactive are all endemic in the public service. As is not managing up the line and instead sh*tting everything down on subordinates as it is easier.

kathleen37

BrianD3 wrote: »

Posters are being very defensive of the payroll manger here. It is very likely that the payroll manager is at least partly responsible for this mess. In a dysfunctional organisation like the HSE, the personality and competence of an individual manager can make the difference between a functional service and chaos.

Let's assume that the payroll department is short staffed. Mary is responsible for processing overtime and subsistence. Everyone knows that there is going to be a delay replacing Mary if she leaves. It is a manager's job to recognise the precariousness of the situation and plan ahead for Mary leaving. Part of that role would be managing upwards effectively, laying out the situation to his boss, fighting for extra resources, being convincing and not letting it go.

Also there is almost always scope for doing things in a more efficient way. E.g. Mary enters figures manually in an Excel spreadsheet because that's the way she has always done it. Maybe she can be provided with a macro/VBA/formula that saves a lot of time. Now if Mary leaves, perhaps another member of staff can keep things ticking over.

It isn't rocket science (or heart surgery) that we're talking about here.

The problem is that many managers are completely incapable of doing any of the above. They could be in a grade that doesn't get paid for overtime so they don't give a crap about whether the paramedics get their overtime or not.

Adopting a "keep your head down" management style, not communicating effectively and being reactive instead of proactive are all endemic in the public service. As is not managing up the line and instead sh*tting everything down on subordinates as it is easier.

All of this. It’s about proper contingency planning and disaster recovery. Risks, mitigation’s and actions are part of that planning. If the worse happens you can’t just say “Oh well....”

You all realise that government departments don't actually have their own payroll departments?

It's centralised. The hse aren't in charge of their own payroll section.

The Garda pay is processed by civil servants that are not answerable to the commissioner

As someone who has done the "temporary" cover in a crisis in the past, the downside of taking over and absorbing someone elses work on top of your own, is you'll be left doing it indefinitely and sometimes permanently.

All management will see is:

"Oh, Mary has left but Ann is taking up the slack, and it's grand, so we don't really need to replace Mary after all"

Next thing you know, Mary's post is suppressed, and Ann is left half killing herself trying to do her own job, and now Mary's work too (which was only supposed to be temporary).

The Payroll Manager can argue until s/he is blue in the face but if sanction is refused for a replacement, its refused, and there is not much more they can do, except keep asking.

alibab

Is anyone on here not aware that the HSE is introducing a whole new payroll system starting on the 21st of September. There has been very little training of payroll and practically zero training of staff on the ground who are now supposed to be entering annual leave etc via a app but no one knows anything about it etc . No lead , no training and practically zero communication. Lots of people in HSE going to end up with lots of issues with pay very soon . I see a lot of unrest on the way ,

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone who has done the "temporary" cover in a crisis in the past, the downside of taking over and absorbing someone elses work on top of your own, is you'll be left doing it indefinitely and sometimes permanently.

All management will see is:

"Oh, Mary has left but Ann is taking up the slack, and it's grand, so we don't really need to replace Mary after all"

Next thing you know, Mary's post is suppressed, and Ann is left half killing herself trying to do her own job, and now Mary's work too (which was only supposed to be temporary).

The Payroll Manager can argue until s/he is blue in the face but if sanction is refused for a replacement, its refused, and there is not much more they can do, except keep asking.

I’ve been there and worn that t-shirt too... “can you give the guys a dig out till we hire...” two years later ...

Health seriously compromised so I know..

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

I’ve been there and worn that t-shirt too... “can you give the guys a dig out till we hire...” two years later ...

Health seriously compromised so I know..

So if you know, why are you advocating that is what should happen?

You're the very person who consistently argues that no one should have to do an extra minute other then they're paid for.

Presuming Mary's roll was full time, 40 hours a week, that much work can't be absorbed by just one person on top of their own existing work. If there are 7 people in the payroll dept that would be approx 5 hours extra work each a week each ?

If someone posted here "my boss is ordering me to stay and work an extra hour a day to cover the work of a staff member that has left. We don't know when they will be replaced" you'd be the first one telling them absolutely no way should they do it.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

So if you know, why are you advocating that is what should happen?

You're the very person who consistently argues that no one should have to do an extra minute other then they're paid for.

Presuming Mary's roll was full time, 40 hours a week, that much work can't be absorbed by just one person on top of their own existing work. If there are 7 people in the payroll dept that would be approx 5 hours extra work each a week each ?

If someone posted here "my boss is ordering me to stay and work an extra hour a day to cover the work of a staff member that has left. We don't know when they will be replaced" you'd be the first one telling them absolutely no way should they do it.

Read back, I was advocating the opposite.

Strumms

Really?

Strumms wrote: »

Might mean outsourcing payroll or god forbid a manager staying back a night or two, like they want you to, sorry EXPECT you to if the shît hits the fan...

So you don't expect managers to stay back and do extra work like you stated here?

Despite several other posters explaining how recruitment or replacement of staff happens in the public sector you obviously can't grasp that its not as straightforward as you seem to believe it is.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?



So you don't expect managers to stay back and do extra work like you stated here?

Despite several other posters explaining how recruitment or replacement of staff happens in the public sector you obviously can't grasp that its not as straightforward as you seem to believe it is.

I’m saying it SHOULD be straightforward... I don’t envy any manager or employee having to deal with inflexibility but if I’m an employee who HAS been consistently flexible I’ll never be ok with managers at any level who NEVER are...

Has to be thinking outside the box. I had a good and fair boss whose hands were tied hiring two replacements... he was down from 11-9 employees wasn’t coping, so he spunked cash from his own cost center to get in two part time temps... so he forced the hand of his employer to make one full time after a while. Remember too, this is payroll, people getting paid, on time, what they are owed.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

I’m saying it SHOULD be straightforward... I don’t envy any manager or employee having to deal with inflexibility but if I’m an employee who HAS been consistently flexible I’ll never be ok with managers at any level who NEVER are...

Has to be thinking outside the box. I had a good and fair boss whose hands were tied hiring two replacements... he was down from 11-9 employees wasn’t coping, so he spunked cash from his own cost center to get in two part time temps... so he forced the hand of his employer to make one full time after a while. Remember too, this is payroll, people getting paid, on time, what they are owed.

You think a manager can “spunk” enough cash in the HSE to employ a replacement, even a temporary one? What about the contract of employment the temp would be entitled to, would the manager forge it without HSE recruitment knowing?

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

You think a manager can “spunk” enough cash in the HSE to employ a replacement, even a temporary one? What about the contract of employment the temp would be entitled to, would the manager forge it without HSE recruitment knowing?

Sound like you are attempting to “spunk” rather disingenuous excuses whereby an organization can have a situation where the are purposely and actively enabling employees who THEY ask to work extra by said management only not to pay them when they do.

Management at some level are responsible for hiring.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

I’m saying it SHOULD be straightforward... I don’t envy any manager or employee having to deal with inflexibility but if I’m an employee who HAS been consistently flexible I’ll never be ok with managers at any level who NEVER are...

Has to be thinking outside the box. I had a good and fair boss whose hands were tied hiring two replacements... he was down from 11-9 employees wasn’t coping, so he spunked cash from his own cost center to get in two part time temps... so he forced the hand of his employer to make one full time after a while. Remember too, this is payroll, people getting paid, on time, what they are owed.

Thats not what I asked you. You're skirting the question now, because you clearly said where I quoted that the manager in this case should stay back. You are applying different standards when it suits you.

It has been explained multiple times that public sector managers do not have the authority to just go an hire temps off their own back where they have staff shortages. They are not in a position to "force" their employers into doing anything.

You either understand that, or you don't, and you clearly don't.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

Sound like you are attempting to “spunk” rather disingenuous excuses whereby an organization can have a situation where the are purposely and actively enabling employees who THEY ask to work extra by said management only not to pay them when they do.

Management at some level are responsible for hiring.

You think public service managers who have the stress of running under resourced departments feel “actively enabled”?

Mind boggling stuff.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats not what I asked you. You're skirting the question now, because you clearly said where I quoted that the manager in this case should stay back. You are applying different standards when it suits you.

It has been explained multiple times that public sector managers do not have the authority to just go an hire temps off their own back where they have staff shortages. They are not in a position to "force" their employers into doing anything.

You either understand that, or you don't, and you clearly don't.

If a company needs line employees or wants line employees to do extra ‘at times’, it’s appropriate that managers do to. and pay them for it on time.

If I knew I didn’t have the wherewithal to pay people, I’m kicking up a ****storm, I’m doing extra to help and taking time in lieu if needed. If that’s not agreeable to senior managers I’m going.

And filling in line staff via a meeting beforehand as to their superiors views.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

If a company needs line employees or wants line employees to do extra ‘at times’, it’s appropriate that managers do to. and pay them for it on time.

If I knew I didn’t have the wherewithal to pay people, I’m kicking up a ****storm, I’m doing extra to help and taking time in lieu if needed. If that’s not agreeable to senior managers I’m going.

And filling in line staff via a meeting beforehand as to their superiors views.

Managers are also employees. You think they should be forced to work extra hours?

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

Managers are also employees. You think they should be forced to work extra hours?

True, and I used the term line employees to differentiate . Nobody can be ‘forced’ to do extra... but you can be negotiated with to do extra, properly compensated by an agreement.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

True, and I used the term line employees to differentiate . Nobody can be ‘forced’ to do extra... but you can be negotiated with to do extra, properly compensated by an agreement.

So it’s voluntary? The manager should not be on the receiving end of your abuse if he/she wants to leave work on time. It isn’t the managers fault they are understaffed.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

So it’s voluntary? The manager should not be on the receiving end of your abuse if he/she wants to leave work on time.

I tend not to want to abuse anyone in life, work or otherwise

Criticizing most certainly if warranted !

It should be mandatory that a manager completes certain tasks like payroll on time during their allocated shift. . If they fail, or look like they cannot provide their employer and employees with the kind of effort and efficiency to enable that happening they need to ‘go upstairs’ giving advance notice of their problems and hope for the best.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

I tend not to want to abuse anyone in life, work or otherwise

Criticizing most certainly if warranted !

It should be mandatory that a manager completes certain tasks like payroll on time during their allocated shift. . If they fail, or look like they cannot provide their employer and employees with the kind of effort and efficiency to enable that happening they need to ‘go upstairs’ giving advance notice of their problems and hope for the best.

Sounds like bullying or unfair/constructive dismissal to me, blaming an employee for deadlines not being met even though it is due to understaffing. If you were the employer Strumms, you would want to leave two years pay aside in the event the manager quits/is fired and takes you to the WRC. You’d be the one hoping for the best.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

If a company needs line employees or wants line employees to do extra ‘at times’, it’s appropriate that managers do to. and pay them for it on time.

Again, with the moving of the goalposts to meet your double standard.

Strumms wrote: »

If I knew I didn’t have the wherewithal to pay people, I’m kicking up a ****storm, I’m doing extra to help and taking time in lieu if needed. If that’s not agreeable to senior managers I’m going. And filling in line staff via a meeting beforehand as to their superiors views.

They'll hold the door open for you as you leave. Threats and dramatics won't get you anywhere in the public sector.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

Sounds like bullying or unfair/constructive dismissal to me, blaming an employee for deadlines not being met even though it is due to understaffing. If you were the employer Strumms, you would want to leave two years pay aside in the event the manager quits/is fired and takes you to the WRC. You’d be the one hoping for the best.

No mention of anybody being dismissed my friend :rolleyes:

If I was the employer, I’m simply ensuring I have to resources to ensure a critical task like ensuring people get paid correctly and on time are in place, either in the job or via outsourcing to one of the myriad of payroll solution companies in Ireland... it’s great to have options that enable managers to meet their responsibilities.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, with the moving of the goalposts to meet your double standard.



They'll hold the door open for you as you leave. Threats and dramatics won't get you anywhere in the public sector.

No threats, all very calmly escalating an important issue...such as being paid correctly, on time, every time

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

No mention of anybody being dismissed my friend :rolleyes:

If I was the employer, I’m simply ensuring I have to resources to ensure a critical task like ensuring people get paid correctly and on time are in place, either in the job or via outsourcing to one of the myriad of payroll solution companies in Ireland... it’s great to have options that enable managers to meet their responsibilities.

Employer = HSE/Public Service. They are not known for ensuring all departments are fully staffed. Hence why it is pointless blaming the payroll manager if there isn’t enough staff to meet deadlines.

Sardonicat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They'll hold the door open for you as you leave. Threats and dramatics won't get you anywhere in the public sector.

Is it any wonder our public service has zero accountability, is backwards and reluctant to change? Apparently, the only thing you can be sacked for is demanding the resources for getting the job you are paid to do, done! The incompetent leading the mediocre leading the lazy. 'What harm if people who are being asked to work extra hours in order to complete COVID testing don't get paid for the extra hours they do? It's not my job to recruit staff to process their payroll. I'll just keep my head down and my mouth shut and fukc them!' And on the monolith trundles with its overriding ethos of intransigence and unaccountability, attracting the type of individual that will ensure its permenant mediocrity. Plus ça change.

Strumms

Dav010 wrote: »

Employer = HSE. They are not known for ensuring all departments are fully staffed. Hence why it is pointless blaming the payroll manager.

If I’m a security manager, tonight a building that my employees are monitoring and guarding gets broken into, regardless of who is at ‘fault’...I can expect a phone call, wanting to know what happened, what could have been done differently in hindsight and what we might need to change to enable it not to happen going forward.

If the payroll manager has a responsibility that he isn’t meeting.... unfortunately managers in life these days seem to SET low standards then FAIL to meet them themselves.

Dav010

Strumms wrote: »

If I’m a security manager, tonight a building that my employees are monitoring and guarding gets broken into, regardless of who is at ‘fault’...I can expect a phone call, wanting to know what happened, what could have been done differently in hindsight and what we might need to change to enable it not to happen going forward.

If the payroll manager has a responsibility that he isn’t meeting.... unfortunately managers in life these days seem to SET low standards then FAIL to meet them themselves.

If you are an understaffed security manager, it would be wrong to expect you to guard the building as effectively as you would if you had the minimum necessary staff to do so. Your employer would be to blame for the understaffing.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

Is it any wonder our public service has zero accountability, is backwards and reluctant to change? Apparently, the only thing you can be sacked for is demanding the resources for getting the job you are paid to do, done! The incompetent leading the mediocre leading the lazy. 'What harm if people who are being asked to work extra hours in order to complete COVID testing don't get paid for the extra hours they do? It's not my job to recruit staff to process their payroll. I'll just keep my head down and my mouth shut and fukc them!' And on the monolith trundles with its overriding ethos of intransigence and unaccountability, attracting the type of individual that will ensure its permenant mediocrity. Plus ça change.

That is not the situation at all, and if you don't know that by what has been posted on the thread so far, you are being deliberately obtuse.

No one is going to be sacked for "demanding" the resources for the job you are paid to do done. But you also can't go about threatening your employer (the HSE) with whistleblowing to other employees, acting above and outside your authority, by, for example, mis-using department funds to hire temps without authorisiation, without employment contracts and without going through the recruitment process - all of which have been suggested here.

Yeah, try that, and expect to land yourself in some pretty hot water and yes, quite likely you'll be sacked for it. Mis-using funds, allowing unofficial and unauthorised persons to access employee personal financial information on the payroll etc, could you imagine the complaints to the Data Commissioner if that ever came about.

It's the payroll manager's job to manage the payroll section to the best of their ability with the resources they have. Their role does NOT include recruitment when staff leaves - that is HR's role.

Those who are not getting paid their overtime should take their argument up with those refusing sanction for replacement staff in the frst place, instead of bullying the people on the ground in the payroll section.

This decision would have been taken at a higher level then them, and wouldn't have been taken if the section involved wasn't already under serious pressure and stretched to the limit, but **** it, they're only public sector workers, so you just assume its down to laziness and incompetence on their part.

There is no harm is asking the existing staff if they can do extra hours, but have you considered that maybe they're already stretched to the limit doing their own work? Or have commitments outside of work which does not allow them to take on extra hours?

As for forcing the existing payroll staff work extra hours to cover - ask Strumms does they think they should be forced to do that. He'll probably give you several different answers, all contradicting each other.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

If I knew I didn’t have the wherewithal to pay people, I’m kicking up a ****storm, I’m doing extra to help and taking time in lieu if needed. If that’s not agreeable to senior managers I’m going.

And filling in line staff via a meeting beforehand as to their superiors views.

Strumms wrote: »

No threats, all very calmly escalating an important issue...such as being paid correctly, on time, every time

Yes, because that all sounds so very calm an non-threatening. :rolleyes:

Sardonicat

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not the situation at all, and if you don't know that by what has been posted on the thread so far, you are being deliberately obtuse.

No one is going to be sacked for "demanding" the resources for the job you are paid to do done.

But you also can't go about threatening your employer (the HSE) with whistleblowing to other employees, acting above and outside your authority, by for example as has been suggested here, misusing department funds to hire temps without authorisiation, without issuing employment contracts or going through the correct recruitment process.

Yeah, try that, and expect to land yourself in some pretty hot water and yes, quite likely you'll be sacked for it. Misusing official funds, allowing unofficial and unauthorised persons to access employee personal financial information on the payroll etc, imagine the complaints to the Data Commissioner if that ever came about.

Its the payroll manager's job to manage the payroll section to the best of their ability with the resources they have. Their role does NOT include recruitment when staff leaves - that is HR's role.

Those who are not getting paid their overtime should take their argument up with those refusing sanction for replacement staff in the frst place, instead of bullying the people on the ground in the payroll section.

This decision would have been taken at a higher level then them, and wouldn't have been taken if the section involved wasn't already under serious pressure and stretched to the limit, but **** it, they're only public sector workers, so you just assume its down to laziness and incompetence on their part.

There is no harm is asking the existing staff if they can do extra hours, but have you considered that maybe they're already stretched to the limit doing their own work? Or have commitments outside of work which does not allow them to take on extra hours?

As for forcing the existing payroll staff work extra hours to cover - ask Strumms does they think they should be forced to do that. He'll probably give you several different answers, all contradicting each other.

I don't just assume it, I've experienced it first hand. 'Not my job, that's HR' Not their job to raise it, either I suppose. No, that would be the job of the ambulance staff who are already working flat out without getting paid for the extra hours. Make sure everyone knows what isn't their job, stay nice and cozy in your permanent pensionable and sleep easy at night. You don't seem to have any problem at all that the ambulance service are being forced to work extra hours unpaid. Something that would leave us all in sh1t creek if they stopped doing. God forbid the wages clerks have to input extra data when it's not in their contract! God forbid that someone sticks their head over the parapet and say ' this is what our inflexible hiring system leads to. I'm not happy leaving these essential workers unpaid because IT'S MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE' and could lead to a serious crisis if they take industrial action. No, that's not in their contract, is it?Anyone with an ounce or talent or a even a hint of morals won't stay and the inert lumps get left behind to proudly defend their ineffective, inflexible and unaccountable ways of doing things.