Lesson 6 — WPS Regime is per worker, not per company
Every worker carries their own WPS Regime, on the employee form under HR Settings. That is a deliberate design choice, and the reason for it is legal rather than technical.
One legal person can hold both an establishment file and a domestic-worker file with the Ministry, each governed by a different resolution with a different compliance test. As the module guide puts it, a Tadbeer-style agency is itself an establishment while the households it supplies are not. A setting held at company level could not describe that situation, so the module holds it at worker level.
| Regime | What happens |
|---|---|
| Establishment (MR 340/2026) | Scored against the 85% monetary ratio. This is the default. |
| Domestic worker (MR 675/2022) | Counted and listed, but not scored. |
| Excluded (Art. 4) | Leaves the ratio entirely, and requires you to name which of the eleven cases applies. |
Why domestic workers are counted but not scored. The precedence between MR 340/2026 and MR 675/2022 after 1 June 2026 is unresolved. Rather than produce a compliance figure on a guess, the module produces none and names the population instead. That is the right call, and it is worth understanding why: a number on a compliance screen will be read as a fact, quoted in a board pack, and eventually shown to a regulator. A guessed figure is worse than no figure.
What MR 675/2022 measures. Article 3 has two limbs, and they are different in kind.
| Limb | What it measures |
|---|---|
| 80% of workers paid on time | A headcount proportion — how many workers, not how much money |
| 75% of each worker's wage | A monetary proportion applied per worker, never averaged |
Why the second limb is never averaged. Four workers paid in full and a fifth paid 30% averages to 86%, comfortably above 75%. Applied per worker, the fifth worker fails and the limb fails with him — and that worker is exactly the one the rule protects. Averaging is not a simplification of this limb; it is a different test, and it reaches the opposite answer.
How the two limbs combine is a setting, Domestic Limbs Combine By, and the module derives its default from the Article's polarity rather than from a connector, because Article 3 contains no connector at all. Its opening deems the employer to have complied with paying the wage through the system "in the following cases", so the cases are safe harbours rather than breaches, and satisfying either one discharges the Article. Much wage-protection drafting runs the other way — measures shall be taken in the following cases — and under that shape requiring both would be correct. Set it to both if your advice is that your regulator reads Article 3 cumulatively, or if you would simply rather over-report than miss a breach.
The two populations never mix. Domestic wages never enter the establishment ratio, and establishment wages never enter the domestic limbs. The banner on each period states which population it is talking about, so a screen is never quietly answering about the other one.
The failure mode. A company that employs both — a facilities business with a household staff file, or an agency with its own back office — sets the regime once at data import and never revisits it. Every new joiner then inherits the default, Establishment, and a domestic worker silently enters the monetary ratio. Check the regime on the employee form when someone joins, not when the assessment looks wrong.