Count your cash wages before accepting?

Count your cash wages before accepting?

Didn't find your answer?

Question doesn't relate to wages but it's a good analogy.

Years ago I had a summer job and we were all paid cash - it was handed out at work in a sealed envelope.  I don't remember being told I couldn't open it before signing for it, although I never did and nor did anyone else.  For one thing the envelopes were often handed out in view of the public and flashing cash around in a 'this is pay day' kind of way might have been a bit risky.

Back then I was just a stupid boy, but thinking back I assume my boss had lots of controls to be confident that each envelope had the right amount of cash in, and I would take confidence myself and not be concerned about being unable to check before signing.

Is this practice acceptable?  If not, why not - where's the legislation or other reference that dictates how the employer, or anyone in the business of paying out cash should behave.

I'd compare this to signing for a delivery of a large item without unwrapping it and checking for damage.

Thanks in advance.

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Democratus
09th Jun 2011 12:47

Not sure what the question is?

Are you asking is a signature indicating receipt of an unknown and unchecked amount of money adequate to fend off any potential query when it later transpires that there is a shortage of funds?

If so then i would have thought that it would be a unlikely defence if there is sufficient evidence that there was neither the opportunity granted to check the contents before opening or there was some degree of intimidation to sign without querying or checking contents.

If you are questioning what controls should an employer who pays cash have that the contents are accurate that's something else which brings me back to my boy accountant days.......and probably too boring.

Basically the entire net pay is broken down into a known number of nots and coins sufficient to pay each worker exactly. This is then counted (twice) for accuracy. Then each envelope is filled as appropriate and hey presto - if there are no coins or notres left over and no envelope short paid then it usually OK. Also two people should be involved, watch out for collusion so introduce random checks by a third party.

Better still don't pay by cash....

If you arre signing for a receipt which is unchecked then amend the delivery receipt with the phrase "unchecked" before signing, though this nis now much more difficult with those electronic boxes that delivery companies now seem to use.

 

Thanks (0)
JPW
By jpwattam
09th Jun 2011 13:31

Sign for the package, not the content?

Thanks for the quick reply.  No I'm not trying to establish a defence as you describe, but whether the recipient has a right to check the contents before signing.  Using the delivery analogy, the recipient could write 'unchecked' when signing for the envelope.  In fact I could add standard wording to the form stating that the recipient is signing for the envelope and not the contents.

I'm basically trying to stop people wanting to open the envelopes and check the money while in the building because of the security risks, while at the same time assuring them that there are sufficient controls in place to make a discrepancy highly unlikely.

Thanks (0)
By Democratus
09th Jun 2011 14:18

Well then

Ahhhh

You could allow "unchecked" and have as a Term of employment / engagement that any shortfall notified within a <insert reasonable> time will be investigated. If you have sufficient controls in place the risk is minor. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By adam.arca
09th Jun 2011 15:15

Back in the days...

....when I was paid in cash for summer jobs, there was a corner cut out of the envelope. This allowed the recipient to check how many notes were sticking out and therefore what they were signing to. I had always assumed that would be a pretty standard control, but obviously not.

Thanks (0)