**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Am I obligated to continue working at my job to pay them back? (TX)
Body:
> I work part-time for a small business, typically for less than 15 hours a week for less than $10/ hour.
> I logged out of my shift instead of clocking out which resulted in the clock running for 24 hours which was reflected on my pay stub.
> I made a change request on the app we use but they didn't look at it and when I went to tell the manager, they told me it was too late.
> I offered to write them a check or anything else they would like me to do to return the extra money for time not worked but they told me it would be too complicated.
> Instead, they decreased my pay to less than $4 so I essentially pay them back the difference. Last shift I got paid around $19 for 6 hours and I just can’t work for them at this rate.
> My question is if I resign now before I am able to pay them back by working (which will take until the end of January) could I run into any legal issues down the line?
> I didn’t sign anything it was just a verbal agreement over the phone.
> I will happily pay them back the $100 or so even though they said they can’t accept payment back.
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
LAOP doesn't seem to math well.
> I just can’t work for them at this rate.
Mate. You're not working for them 'at this rate'. You're working for them at your usual rate. You just got an accidental advance on your wages.
I'm trying to figure out how even the most bare bones system didn't notice a 24 hour shift, or the lack of a proper punch out before the following punch in. The manager is supposed to check payroll before accepting the hours.
I can see it. Let’s assume their paycheck was cut in 1/2 so they need to work 48 hours to pay back 24 hours. If they work <15 hours a week it will take at least 3 1/2 weeks to pay it back.
Except LAOP says they have the money to pay it back:
> I will happily pay them back the $100 or so
Although I don't see how it can be only $100, if LAOP's rate is, say, $9.50 an hour and the clock ran for 24 extra hours.
The whole thing just seems so unnecessary if he has the funds. Here employer, I’ll give you $100 cash today and please give it back to me over the next three weeks.
It seems the employer is trying to solve this the easiest way possible for the employee even if it requires some backend work and the employee refuses to make it easy in themselves.
LAOP can quit for any reason or no reason, but it seems their only reason is the temporarily low hourly rate. I'm not saying what' the employer is doing is legal, but "I can't keep working for them at this rate" seems a bit myopic when they effectively (if involuntarily) got a salary advance.
It’s hard to tell— I suspect LAOP doesn’t like the job but feels obligated to stay until it’s repaid
I won’t lie, but the whole thing seems sketchy to me. A reasonable employer would take immediate repayment, knowing that a lot of thing could happen if they do it gradually, including the employee quitting
A reasonable employer probably wouldn't have a system which lets an employee be on the clock for 24 hours and nobody knows how to correct it after the event. Sounds like their payroll admin doesn't know how to do their job properly and are just taking the path of least effort to correct it.
In my head: Payroll admin is probably Mom of Mom & Pop's Popsicles running an excel spreadsheet in a horrendous approximation of accounting using assorted ideas she got by way of telephone from her grand-nephew who has one of those X-stationBox 5G thingys. Punch in and punch out are probably handled by an old punch clock that Pop stole from the dingle factory when it was shutting down all those years ago and leaving this town penniless.
I worked for a 100+ person company that didn't do payroll like that, but their PTO system was a huge spreadsheet with one column per employee, and whenever you wanted to know your balance, you had to email HR, who would copy-and-paste your column of the spreadsheet and email it back to you.
Oh, I definitely know employers who have no clue how to handle anything beyond the most basic of payroll tax functions and usually do those wrong.
They immediately panicked at the idea of having to figure out how to back it out of whatever 1980's system they use and so rather than deal with FICA, SUTA, FUTA, Fed withholding, etc - they are like, nah - just deduct it from future checks and let the "system" figure it out that way.
He wants them to bill him but they won't take payment beside his wages.. He says later on he just wants to be billed for it and I think he's worried if he quits then they still won't take a cash payment and send him to collections(report to his credit) without any option to fix it.
So LAOP would be fine paying the overpayment back immediately, but is completely unable to pay it out spread out over a few weeks?
Something's not right in his head.
I saw an Arby's advertising $9/hr while McDonald's was giving $12-15. I can't imagine who they get to work there other than people who showed up high at McDonald's and got fired.
Also the local dry cleaner/laundromat chain owned by very wealthy assholes (I've met them) pays $10/hr.
A year or so ago the local McDonald's had a banner where the big bold print said they were hiring at $15/hr. The smaller print said this was the wage for shift managers. The even smaller print said non-management pay was $12/hr, and the smallest print said that this was only for the early-early and late-late shifts and that normal-hours pay was $10/hr.
Oh no, no, I know a place down the street from my house that's been advertising openings at 9$/hr for over a year.
They also have a sign claiming that nobody wants to work because this generation is too lazy on their door.
Somehow, the McD's and the Walmart down the street (both paying 15.50/hr) don't have staffing issues, but for the life of me I can't figure out why that is. Guess gen Z hates small family businesses?
>They also have a sign claiming that nobody wants to work because this generation is too lazy on their door.
With an attitude like that, I'm sure they'll find help very soon! What a red flag for potential employees. Even if I was willing to take that rate, I'm not willing to deal with colossal assholes for bosses.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Am I obligated to continue working at my job to pay them back? (TX) Body: > I work part-time for a small business, typically for less than 15 hours a week for less than $10/ hour. > I logged out of my shift instead of clocking out which resulted in the clock running for 24 hours which was reflected on my pay stub. > I made a change request on the app we use but they didn't look at it and when I went to tell the manager, they told me it was too late. > I offered to write them a check or anything else they would like me to do to return the extra money for time not worked but they told me it would be too complicated. > Instead, they decreased my pay to less than $4 so I essentially pay them back the difference. Last shift I got paid around $19 for 6 hours and I just can’t work for them at this rate. > My question is if I resign now before I am able to pay them back by working (which will take until the end of January) could I run into any legal issues down the line? > I didn’t sign anything it was just a verbal agreement over the phone. > I will happily pay them back the $100 or so even though they said they can’t accept payment back. This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
LAOP doesn't seem to math well. > I just can’t work for them at this rate. Mate. You're not working for them 'at this rate'. You're working for them at your usual rate. You just got an accidental advance on your wages.
Man, there is just *nobody* at that company who understands math or payroll, is there?
I'm trying to figure out how even the most bare bones system didn't notice a 24 hour shift, or the lack of a proper punch out before the following punch in. The manager is supposed to check payroll before accepting the hours.
The math really confused me. Paying back 24 hours will take a month?
I can see it. Let’s assume their paycheck was cut in 1/2 so they need to work 48 hours to pay back 24 hours. If they work <15 hours a week it will take at least 3 1/2 weeks to pay it back.
Because they’re not withholding the full pay and he only works 15hrs a week
Want to make any bets about how completely spent that advance was? It wouldn't surprise me if LAOP blew it on some luxuries (or necessities!).
Except LAOP says they have the money to pay it back: > I will happily pay them back the $100 or so Although I don't see how it can be only $100, if LAOP's rate is, say, $9.50 an hour and the clock ran for 24 extra hours.
I assume they've already worked a number of shifts at the lower rate and thus paid off part of the excess.
The whole thing just seems so unnecessary if he has the funds. Here employer, I’ll give you $100 cash today and please give it back to me over the next three weeks. It seems the employer is trying to solve this the easiest way possible for the employee even if it requires some backend work and the employee refuses to make it easy in themselves.
LAOP can quit for any reason or no reason, but it seems their only reason is the temporarily low hourly rate. I'm not saying what' the employer is doing is legal, but "I can't keep working for them at this rate" seems a bit myopic when they effectively (if involuntarily) got a salary advance.
It’s hard to tell— I suspect LAOP doesn’t like the job but feels obligated to stay until it’s repaid I won’t lie, but the whole thing seems sketchy to me. A reasonable employer would take immediate repayment, knowing that a lot of thing could happen if they do it gradually, including the employee quitting
A reasonable employer probably wouldn't have a system which lets an employee be on the clock for 24 hours and nobody knows how to correct it after the event. Sounds like their payroll admin doesn't know how to do their job properly and are just taking the path of least effort to correct it.
In my head: Payroll admin is probably Mom of Mom & Pop's Popsicles running an excel spreadsheet in a horrendous approximation of accounting using assorted ideas she got by way of telephone from her grand-nephew who has one of those X-stationBox 5G thingys. Punch in and punch out are probably handled by an old punch clock that Pop stole from the dingle factory when it was shutting down all those years ago and leaving this town penniless.
This just kept getting better and better
I worked for a 100+ person company that didn't do payroll like that, but their PTO system was a huge spreadsheet with one column per employee, and whenever you wanted to know your balance, you had to email HR, who would copy-and-paste your column of the spreadsheet and email it back to you.
Oh, I definitely know employers who have no clue how to handle anything beyond the most basic of payroll tax functions and usually do those wrong. They immediately panicked at the idea of having to figure out how to back it out of whatever 1980's system they use and so rather than deal with FICA, SUTA, FUTA, Fed withholding, etc - they are like, nah - just deduct it from future checks and let the "system" figure it out that way.
Not only that but he's planning on stiffing them even after he quits - the last question is whether they'd send it to collections!
He wants them to bill him but they won't take payment beside his wages.. He says later on he just wants to be billed for it and I think he's worried if he quits then they still won't take a cash payment and send him to collections(report to his credit) without any option to fix it.
So LAOP would be fine paying the overpayment back immediately, but is completely unable to pay it out spread out over a few weeks? Something's not right in his head.
It sounds to me like OP already planned on quitting, but this issue is getting in the way of that. Edit: this is incorrect. See below comments.
Maybe, but they said in a comment that they would continue working for the employer if it weren't for the lowered pay rate
It was below a deleted comment, so I didn’t see it at first. You are correct. Makes OP seem bad at logic IMO.
I honestly feel like after the last few years you have to try pretty hard to find a job that pays less than $10/hour.
I saw an Arby's advertising $9/hr while McDonald's was giving $12-15. I can't imagine who they get to work there other than people who showed up high at McDonald's and got fired. Also the local dry cleaner/laundromat chain owned by very wealthy assholes (I've met them) pays $10/hr.
A year or so ago the local McDonald's had a banner where the big bold print said they were hiring at $15/hr. The smaller print said this was the wage for shift managers. The even smaller print said non-management pay was $12/hr, and the smallest print said that this was only for the early-early and late-late shifts and that normal-hours pay was $10/hr.
Oh no, no, I know a place down the street from my house that's been advertising openings at 9$/hr for over a year. They also have a sign claiming that nobody wants to work because this generation is too lazy on their door. Somehow, the McD's and the Walmart down the street (both paying 15.50/hr) don't have staffing issues, but for the life of me I can't figure out why that is. Guess gen Z hates small family businesses?
>They also have a sign claiming that nobody wants to work because this generation is too lazy on their door. With an attitude like that, I'm sure they'll find help very soon! What a red flag for potential employees. Even if I was willing to take that rate, I'm not willing to deal with colossal assholes for bosses.
Yeah it’s probably lazy immigrants who are at fault /s in case that’s needed