Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#121

Post by luckylion »

jjulius wrote: post #119
luckylion wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're misunderstanding the point. If the headline would be "Rippling had to switch banks after...", it would be accurate and not clickbait. The headline is "Rippling has to delay payouts after..." though, which is completely different. They haven't delayed payouts. Some payouts are delayed, because they were in flight when the plane crashed. That's not "delaying payouts", that's "payouts are delayed". They'd wou…

>... it's about the "did they actually delay payments", which is an active process and requires intent. You mean like making the big decision to switch banks during a crisis like this knowing that payments would likely be delayed as a part of the process? Huh, would ya look at that. If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew wh…

Payments are delayed that already were underway because the failed bank didn't actually send the money. So they switched banks and send everything else via JP Morgan so that it doesn't get delayed. They're not switching banks and delaying payments because of that.

> If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would happen and they said, "Do it".

No, the delay is because of the failing of the bank they used. Certainly, if they had known that this bank would be taken over and not actually execute the orders and just cease to exist, and they still would have said "do it", then they'd be to blame. But they weren't aware that the bank would stop operating suddenly, just like everyone else (including the bank itself, apparently).

> There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks).

Of course there would be. If they hadn't switched, the payments that were in flight when the bank shut down would still not be completed, and additional payments would also not go through until the situation at the bank is resolved in some way or another.

Like, if one plane crashes, and you want some cargo to arrive somewhere, of course you send a different plane, even though it can't arrive at the same time as the original plane. Not doing so would actually delay the whole thing, and that would've been a choice. But that's simply not what happened.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#122

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

OJFord wrote: post #71
FireBeyond wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that's my point, not necessarily agreeing with the motivation or such. If the transfer went through before the FDIC shuttered them this AM, it could be argued that the transaction was entirely authorized _at the time_ the ACH debit occurred. Hopefully banks will sympathize, but I don't know that you can say "the bank was forcibly closed the day after this ACH transaction, so it's unauthorized, because I in…

Regardless of the correctness or legality of the advice, it's a bit odd to wade in and give it at all isn't it? Why not steer well clear? Seem friendly/helpful and buy goodwill I suppose?

Rippling has received the money, and it then disappeared while in Rippling's account.

If Rippling can get their customers to somehow get that money out and wire it again, Rippling may not be on the hook for replacing the missing money.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#123

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

vladaionescu wrote: post #14

This article is slightly click-baity. The payments are delayed in some cases, not held out altogether. From what I'm hearing so far, Rippling has changed banks over night and has instructed all clients to update the ACH filters accordingly. Only payroll cycles caught in-between will be affected, but even then they are delayed, but not held.

> even then they are delayed, but not held.

If I understand it correctly:

1. Businesses processing payroll through Rippling wired money to Rippling's account as SVB

2. Rippling would now normally use that money to pay the businesses employees.

3. Before that could happen, SVB went upside-down. Some of the money may be lost, the rest is frozen.

4. The businesses owe their employees their pay, but may not have enough money to simply pay for payroll a second time.

5. Rippling owes the money to the businesses (respectively, has an obligation towards the businesses to pay their payroll), but may not have the money to do so after some amount of funds just disappeared and another larger amount just got frozen for an unknown amount of time.

6. Employees of these businesses won't be receiving their pay on time, and may not be able to receive it at all if the money they're supposed to be paid with is gone and neither their employer nor Rippling can afford to cover the loss and goes bankrupt.

Edit: based on a tweet linked elsewhere in this thread, Rippling is putting up its own money to make sure payroll goes through, so it should indeed just be one business day of delay + possibly additional small delays because some companies didn't make the necessary adjustments to keep future payroll runs working.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#124

Post by wlonkly »

ajb wrote: post #110
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people are not receiving their promised money on time? Sounds like the title is accurate. Not everyone has the float to handle an unexpected delay in money. People can also suffer liquidity events.

Is it typical for US companies issue pay on the last possible contractual day? I don't think this is usual practice in the UK - for example my contact specifies that I will be paid by the last day of the month, but typically we get the payment several days earlier, sometimes add much as a week.

Yes, in my experience (US and Canada), if paydays are the 1st and 15th, or every second Thursday, or whatever, then the money appears on precisely that day (adjusting for holidays, weekends, etc. by paying sooner).

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#125

Post by wlonkly »

DeathArrow wrote: post #96
ummonk wrote: post #32

The article headline is clickbait. They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase now; the only delay is because some payouts were in flight when they got stuck in SVB, so if a payout was started via SVB a few days ago and was going to arrive today (because bank transactions aren't instantaneous), the new payouts will take a few days to arrive via JP Morgan Chase.

>They're immediately doing payouts through JP Morgan Chase And is JP Morgan safe from having similar issues with SVB?

JP Morgan Chase is the largest bank in the United States. If JP Morgan Chase was taken over by the FDIC, it wouldn't be payroll delays that were making the headlines.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#126

Post by wlonkly »

mabbo wrote: post #5

Is there a resource we can all use to find out if our employer is in a similar situation?

Not to be flippant, but ask your manager or your HR people. The best people to know who does your company's payroll are the people at your company.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#127

Post by HarryHirsch »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #26
HarryHirsch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off to the Department of Labour, they won't look kindly on late paychecks.

Seems unnecessary and malicious. Im not sure why anyone would want to report their employer for a minor delay when a bank is folding. Hopefully the DOL would ignore that. It is basically the same as reporting your employer because for a late check because the mailman got shot on your doorstep. I feel like it also does a disservice to people who have real late paycheck abuses.

The warning signs were all there since January. There needs to be some incentive for the employer not to use an unsound bank because if there aren't you end up in a situation like this, where the government needs to step in again and bail out depositors because the alternative would be worse.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#128

Post by parker_mountain »

nighthawk454 wrote: post #72
parker_mountain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"has to delay payouts" -> "the only delay is because" so there are in fact delayed payouts.

It’s misleading at least. At best this means _some_ payouts are delayed, but definitely still coming. Given the rest of the news today that’s practically a non-issue.

some payouts is not no payouts. it's an amount of payouts

> definitely still coming

aka delayed

or in summation

"payouts are delayed"

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#129

Post by ShakataGaNai »

toufka wrote: post #112
alasdair_ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if this goes on for any length of time, you could sue your employer... but lack of payroll would only happen if the company no longer has any money - effectively making them bankrupt. Again you could name SVB in the lawsuit, or the FDIC... but good luck getting blood from the stone. You could also sue the CEO directly. Failure to pay employee wages is one of the few things that can (somewhat) easily pierce the c…

Which is why an enormous number of people will be fired, furloughed or reduced to minimum wage on Monday if this isn’t resolved.

Well it's all moot, the fed stepped in and we're all safe.

Re: SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts after Silicon Valley Bank collapse

#130

Post by nighthawk454 »

parker_mountain wrote: post #128
nighthawk454 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s misleading at least. At best this means _some_ payouts are delayed, but definitely still coming. Given the rest of the news today that’s practically a non-issue.

some payouts is not no payouts. it's an amount of payouts > definitely still coming aka delayed or in summation "payouts are delayed"

Nuance and degrees exist. A title of "humans are dying" could _literally_ mean 2+ people died in a local car accident, or all of humanity is dead, or an article about actuarial life expectancy, or an ongoing war/crisis, or an opinion piece about how AI _might_ kill us all. That's a valid "summation" of any of those. Pretty much can't be wrong because it conveys nothing, except clickability.

The point is that was not the best way to phrase it given the actual details of the situation and the surrounding context.

Technically correct is not always the best kind.

Even "SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts by 1 day after Silicon Valley Bank collapse" is infinitely more clear and communicative.

Post reply on HN