OPEA Amends Payroll Legislation

  

 

Legislation that would transition all state employees to a bi-weekly payroll was amended in House committee deleting a section that would require all agencies to make the transition in the next three years.  OPEA worked with the bill’s author Sen. Randy Brogdon of Owasso to ensure state employees would not lose money in the transition.

 

“I want to be certain that state employees are not harmed in the transition,” Brogdon told the Senate General Government and Appropriations Subcommittee.

 

The legislation, which was proposed by the Office of State Finance, would move all state employees to a bi-weekly payroll.  However, a lag would be added at the time. 

 

“We have no problem with the concept of bi-weekly payroll,” said OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley.  “OPEA opposes the implementation of a two week lag without a bonus or something to help state employees make it through the lag period.”

 

The implementation of the bi-weekly and lag payroll would require state employees to effectively lose two weeks of pay.  Under the new system, an employee would be paid every two weeks, but not until two weeks following the end of the pay period.  While the change would improve payroll administration and allow state employees to be paid more often, the two week delay could be very difficult for some workers.

 

OPEA has asked that the state provide employees with a bonus of two weeks pay in order to implement the payroll change.  According to OSF, this would cost the state $50 million in a year with a budget shortfall. 

 

“OPEA will not support a change in the payroll system that takes $50 million from state employees,” said Zearley.

 

The title was removed from the bill in committee to allow more discussion and work before the end of session.  OPEA is working closely with Brogdon and House author, Rep. Jason Murphey, to find a resolution to the issue.

19 comments ()

1. charles beck wrote:
i dont support it you shouldnt have to go biweekly unless u want too

Wed, March 25, 2009 @ 10:01 PM

2. John wrote:
I have almost all of my recurring bills setup on automatic withdrawal from my checking account, the first week of the month. If this bill passes, I will be forced to contact numerous creditors to try and persuade them to change my payment dates. I anticipate some will not agree to do so. Regardless, this will create a lot of hassle for me, and very possibly, a considerable financial hardship. I suspect there are a number of state employees that will have similar outcomes if this bill is passed into law.

The administrative burden on some agencies for transitioning from monthly to bimonthly will be significant. I believe that, currently, it is optional for agencies to process payroll monthly, or bimonthly.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 10:02 AM

3. concerned wrote:
They need to leave well enough alone and concentrate on the benefits for the sake of the employees a raise by July 1,then work on a bi-weekly change. If they can lag 2 weeks without pay, they certainly can give a pay raise for all state employees.You will mess the system up by making too many changes at once. I'll agree with #1. I don't support it.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 10:56 AM

4. Terry H wrote:
Bi-weekly payroll should not be instituted under any language. Have any of the people that are for this run a payroll through the Peoplesoft system? If they had they would shut up about it. They were also thinking about making this voluntary for employees so they could choose. That means agencies would have a combination of monthly and bi-weekly. That means a tremendous amount of additional payrolls to run and a much more complex system to maintain. This is people's livelihoods. They don't take it laying down when there is a mistake. We had two HR personnel. One person retired and we are not filling one of the slots due to impending budget cuts. If bi-weekly of any kind is implemented we will have to fill the vacant position. Where would be our cost savings? That is an answer that Brogdon doesn't have and doesn't want to address. Go run some payrolls in Peoplesoft and then come back to the table. Let's talk then.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 11:19 AM

5. J wrote:
Leave the system as it is. It will mess up too many household budgets.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 12:39 PM

6. Richard D. wrote:
After all these years, I am comfortable with the monthly payroll. I have everything set up to be paid at the beginning of the month. I don't like the bi-weekly, the bi-monthly would be a better fit.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 2:21 PM

7. Patriot wrote:
I smell a diversion here.

Remember last year when they proposed to take away our benefits allowance and making us start paying in, all the while debating whether we should get a raise? Ends up neither happened, but the intended effect was to make State employees say "Well we didn't get a raise, but at least they didn't take our benefits from us!", like we won something.

This is the same thing if it fails. Make us think "Hey we didn't get a raise for the fourth year in a row, but at least we didn't lose 2 weeks pay!"

This economic crises is exactly why Oklahoma state employees needs a cost of living adjustment built-in the system. We had some good economic times in Oklahoma the past few years and they didn't give us a raise. Now there's no raise in sight.

If we had a COLA, and with this economy I was told no raise this year, I'd probably understand, if we had been given one during the good years.

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 2:41 PM

8. State Employee - Bob I. wrote:
I don not support it, it will mess up my budget which I have a lot of direct deposit. This will mess up our pay. Don't support it!!!

Thu, March 26, 2009 @ 3:36 PM

9. D.K. wrote:
How much interest will the state gain by keeping my money for that two weeks each pay period? "It's MY money and I want it NOW"

Fri, March 27, 2009 @ 7:17 AM

10. J wrote:
We are already on a 1 month lag from when we started our current position. Start the bi-weekly by paying us ahead 2 weeks.

Or would there be lost interest earned for the state in that model?

Fri, March 27, 2009 @ 10:34 AM

11. James Schroder wrote:
I smell a rat. A $50 million rat. Sounds like a way to take $50 million back from us. We MUST oppose this with our legislators.

Fri, March 27, 2009 @ 2:34 PM

12. RB wrote:
This is a good bill, I'm older and my kids are grown, the younger people where I work cannot manage their money being paid once a month. We can keep more people on the payroll if we pay them twice a month.

Sat, March 28, 2009 @ 1:52 PM

13. FattCatt wrote:
The Office of State Finance sound like a bunch of buffoons.

What about delayed pay roll? By the time that second pay roll comes around, it will be paid day again. This system will become a nightmare for them.

I think we should all sit back and watch OSF fall flat on their face.

This idea is not going to work.

>*x*<

Sun, March 29, 2009 @ 1:21 AM

14. Betty wrote:
When I first started work for the State, I hated the monthly payday, but now everything is set up for that fact. Someone needs to spend time on enhancement rather than disruption.

Mon, March 30, 2009 @ 9:52 AM

15. D wrote:
A bi-weekly and lag payroll should not even be considered, if the state of Oklahoma values their workforce. I do not know about anyone else, but if this takes place I will lose my house and I only have 3 more years before it will be paid for. All of my recurring bills are setup on automatic withdrawal from my checking account at the first of each month. If this bill passes, I will be forced to make changes which most will not be willing to do, especially my mortgage company.
This will create a financial hardship on both myself and my wife, because my wife's retirement keeps depleting because the CEO of the company keeps getting raises (the funds come from all retirees accounts),as well as the increases in medical coverage.
If the legislature passes this bill, then they do not care about dedicated state employees, who have spent the majority of their working career working for the State of Oklahoma.
I cannot afford to lose two weeks of pay!

Tue, March 31, 2009 @ 11:36 AM

16. D.Johnson wrote:
#12 says pay bi-weekly and it will keep the younger personnel working. Bah, humbug. They spend a monthly paycheck the first few days they have it. What makes this guy think that they will spend it slower if we are paid every couple of weeks. Talk about dumb and dumber.

give us some support Mr. Brogdon instead of dreaming up news to screw state employees. You sure don't have to struggle like we do, I am positive. Talk to the JBS, maybe they can help you.

bitter????? Yes, I am!!!

I understand budget shortfall, but I don't understand someone trying to pass a bill that is ridiculous to the point of absurdity!! Only for the glory of passing a bill!! Think again Governor Henry. Don't do this!! You will seriously injure the health and welfare of the little guys who work for you and do the dirty work every day.

Tue, March 31, 2009 @ 12:05 PM

17. T wrote:
This is the 21st century any system that can be set up to auto pay bills once a month can surely be set up to pay twice a month. Twice a month is the best way to go. There should be no reason for a lag of any kind. 22 years of military service twice a month without any lag, all bills paid on time. Lets get with the program

Tue, March 31, 2009 @ 12:52 PM

18. FattCatt wrote:
I tell you right now if they even try to take two weeks of pay from me, I will sue their a**.

State employees are already a month behind in pay, another lag of two weeks without compinsation is stealing from me & my family...do they think we are stupid?

>*x*<

Tue, March 31, 2009 @ 2:12 PM

19. Mental Health Employee wrote:
Hey guys, Department of Mental Health pays bi-weekly. It is great and I cannot imagine going to a once a month pay system. As the one person said it is the 21st century not the dark ages. Everyone gets paid on time and you get more money in your check than once a month. So from the mental health employee - don't even consider going backwards - we like the bi-weekly pay. Makes us all happy every two weeks.

Wed, April 1, 2009 @ 9:48 AM