Consolidated Business & Enterprise Computing Rant Thread

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by elvis, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,721
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    This x 75% of the entire Australian salaried workforce. It as hard to get stuff done this week than during the post Christmas lull.
     
  2. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,043
    What are you talking about???

    Also heaven forbid someone might you know want a long holiday, if 4 weeks is alarm bells then I'm not sure what paranoid org you work for
     
  3. GumbyNoTalent

    GumbyNoTalent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,940
    Location:
    Briz Vegas
    Always ask for your time off, they aren't allowed to decline your request just because it doesn't suit them and then force you to take leave when it doesn't suit you, unless the entire business shuts down for that period.
    Many years ago I had 10 weeks leave and 20 days TOIL, everytime they said take a holiday I said how many weeks, so TOIL + x weeks was always too long for projects, also max TOIL was 3 days, management need to decide whats more important to them.
    PS - we came to an arrangement which involved payment of TOIL and me taking holidays.
     
  4. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,678
    What I'm not saying is "Staff who have lots of holidays banked up are committing fraud"... more along the lines of;

    It's easier to cover up fraud, when you are there every day, ergo. One of the indicators of fraud, is staff who don't take holidays.
     
  5. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,721
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    This is a pretty weird first assumption, to me the situation sounds more like a symptom of orgs where management cut corners on staffing levels and are hostile to workers actually taking their leave.
     
  6. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,678
    It's not an assumption, It's a statistic.

    It's harder to commit fraud, if you aren't there all the time. Requiring staff to take their accrued leave regularly, is an effective control against this risk.
     
  7. Fred Nurk

    Fred Nurk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,212
    Location:
    Cairns QLD
    Actually, Pablo is correct, although its often the last consideration that comes to mind when it happens.
    An employer of mine had one of the admin staff with a gambling problem take them to the cleaners for 7 figures (not all at once). Same sort of occurence, never really took leave, as they had to be around to 'hide' whatever transactions and so on they were undertaking. Wasn't a big company with onerous workload either.

    From an employee point of view, banking lots of leave is not a sensible long term strategy, as companies just as easily find themselves in trouble, and haven't been putting aside the right amounts to guarantee the staff entitlements, with the expected results.
     
  8. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,721
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    seems more like a syllogism, rather than a stat - have you got a source? What are we even defining as fraud here, spending excessive amount of time in the loo, or colluding with people in accounting to issue fake invoices?
     
  9. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,678
    https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/~/m...l-resources/business/employee-fraud.pdf?la=en

     
  10. samus

    samus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,264
    Location:
    Baulkham Hills, Sydney.
    Pablo is on the money, I've been to many a risk seminar, talked to some very smart people working for the ICAC (including one really smart dude with a doctorate in maths and stats), and this is the numbers. Easy way to commit fraud is to do it all yourself.
     
  11. looktall

    looktall Working Class Doughnut

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    24,867
    I think the driving factor behind most companies enforcing leave is financial.

    Accrued leave requires the business to put aside money to pay for it and money sitting around doing nothing looks bad on the books.
     
  12. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,678
    I don't understand that, surely, them earning interest on the holiday wages they owe, is better financially?

    Why does having money look bad on the books?
     
  13. Unframed

    Unframed Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,137
    Location:
    Hella south west
    Pretty much it but I'm working ANZAC day, from home. The pitfall is being an international support team means it'll probably be the same workload.
     
  14. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,721
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    It's not as much an empirical statistic demonstrating a causal direction, it's a statement of the obvious. It can just as easily be framed as "management's so shitty they can't run the org competently, making fraud easier".

    I'll probably be wasting a chunk of the afternoon looking at academic literature on financial crime now...

    My fave is the chief cashier of a university letting millions of dollars 'rest' in his personal account for short periods, and creaming the interest. It went on for ages before he was caught. Another good one from the NSW ICAC what when they caught a USyd CIO out for 'forgetting' that he was a director of an outsourcing company he awarded a contract to.

    I'd hazard that most orgs could find a more productive/profitable use for the money.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  15. looktall

    looktall Working Class Doughnut

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    24,867
    Because it goes in the debtors column.
    Depending on the size of the company and the leave liability it could be millions of dollars listed as a debt.
     
  16. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,678
    But the amount listed in the creditors column for "payment of leave" should match, leaving a net 0?
     
  17. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,043
    Yep, one year for one particularly shitty (large) org, an email went round blaming the lack of bonuses on people banking too much leave.
    Fantastic move for morale, and bonus points coming from head of HR.
     
  18. looktall

    looktall Working Class Doughnut

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    24,867
    It doesn't match until the leave is taken.
     
  19. j3ll0

    j3ll0 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    4,747
    Also depends on interest being earnt exceeds the payrises being granted.

    Those 8/52 of $100K look different when they turn into 8/52 of $150K.

    .
     
    PabloEscobar and NSanity like this.
  20. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,506
    Location:
    Melbourne
    several reasons I've had thrown at me over the years:

    - you earn time off in hours, but you take it at your current pay rate - might involve promotion, change of role etc
    - some companies don't debit the cost of leave to the "owning" department at the time it is accrued, just at the time it's taken, so if the employee swaps roles, the wrong department ends up paying for the leave
    (had this happen with one PHB-managed company, they didn't start counting LSL at all until you have 5 years service up, so if you were transferred just before then the "winning" department copped the entire "cost" of 5 years pro-rate LSL on their cost centre)
    - for much the same reason, leave taken years after it is accrues means a cost attributable to a previous accounting year which makes the accountants develop a nervous twitch


    I've also had one completely clueless ball busting PHB tell me I absolutely had to "manage my accrued leave", but was absolutely intransigent when I told her fine, I'd cash it out. despite complying with every HR rule about doing so she refused, I can only guess it must have been a black mark on her KPIs if it happened. in the end I just refused and said she'd have to take me to HR to force me to take leave, and she could explain to them why I wasn't allowed to use a documented option I had fully qualified for. before that happened she moved on, and her successor didn't care less about it, reinforcing my suspicion that she was just a bitch.
     
    colmaz, PabloEscobar and NSanity like this.

Share This Page

Advertisement: