As it turns out, not any different. Numerous studies have shown that people cannot tell the difference between expensive wine and average wine... Because there isn't really one.

Like grapes, sorta.

OP doesn't mention their work being cut, just not getting paid for the work that they are doing. Less money in the budget or a smaller budget for a certain division doesn't affect them getting paid. Legally you get paid for your time. There are no other factors that go in to your base pay.

OP only had 300 characters to get the point across so obviously had to leave a lot out.

That's just an assumption on your part to try to make yourself look right. You know what happens when you assume? Just subtract the 'me' from that equation.

See, I don't care if I'm right. I'm just pointing out the hard limits of the code, kind of like Twitter only allows 140 characters per post. But unlike Twitter you can't do a 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 break up to get a more indepth thought out. I'm making inferences based on what I read rather than wholesale assumptions. The 'biggest company in our industry' part tells me that it's very likely a corporate structure rather than just working for some schmoe. There is no mention that the work that has been done won't be paid for, just that there's no funding for it in the future. Sounds pretty much like a layoff or corporate restructuring for me. In fact, using almost that exact wording on a layoff slip pretty much ensures that the person can get unemployment benefits. I could be wrong. But based on the wording and some knowledge of how companies are run tells me that I could be right. No one ever writes an FML where they don't try to make themselves look sympathetic. I'm also trying to figure out what ASSU means. If you're going to insult someone, at least get the insult right.

Wow, you got all that from "This would be fine if they hadn't just told me there are no funds to pay me for the work they've got me doing." There's no reference to future pay, a restructure, or OPs division having less of a budget. You're jumping to conclusions when there's no mention of any of the previous events occurring in an attempt to show everyone how smart you are when really you don't have the slightest clue. Seriously, just take what OP wrote and base your comments off of that instead of assuming. You won't look like an ass. When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME. Get rid of the ME and you made an ASS out of YOURSELF.

Of course there's no reference to future pay or restructuring. BECAUSE THERE IS A 300 CHARACTER LIMIT. And I'm not assuming. I'm inferring from a broad knowledge base and the wording of the FML. I'm pretty sure that at this point, we both look like asses. That is all.

You're inferring wrong and reading way too much into what was written. Nowhere in the wording would it be possible to infer anything that you have mentioned. I, too, understand how corporations work and understand labor laws and pay. Legally, you are to be paid for your time, no matter what. Budgets and restructuring have no effect on it. And just because the company OP works for is the largest in their industry, doesn't mean it is a large industry; their industry/corporation may actually be small and not organized the same way. You're wrong and are trying to twist everything around to make yourself look right. Your reading comprehension skills are abhorrent and you come off like one of OPs bosses, enjoying a $1800 bottle of wine while OP works for free.

See, we're both making inferences based on what OP said. And mine, while they could be wrong, could also be right. Personally, I can't figure out why you have such a hardon for proving me wrong. Which you have not and cannot do. If OP comes and comments we'll find out the truth. I have advanced a reasonable and realistic reason why this could have occurred and all you've done is try and fail to knock it down while coming after me on a personal level. Real classy.

A) I never inferred or assumed. Just pointing out your assumptions and finding flaws in your argument. B) I don't have a hard on for proving you wrong. I made a simple comment about how pay and labor laws work and you constantly try to prove me wrong with, quite frankly, made up fairy tales of how OPs company works when nothing was stated to support your claim. Stop trying to use the 300 character limit as your defense, it is weak and flimsy. Your reading comprehension skills are appalling and you come off as extremely arrogant.

The fact that the bosses went on a work-funded retreat with $1800 wine implies that it is a large and very likely prosperous company. This is reasonably backed up by OP's statement that 'We are also the biggest company in our industry.' It might indeed be a small company in a small industry. But they generally don't have management retreats with $1800 bottles of wine.This inference is based completely on a reasonable level of deductive reasoning and reading comprehension. You seem to think I'm trying to prove you wrong. I'm not. I agree completely that OP is both entitled and legally required to be paid for time worked. But nowhere in the FML does it say that OP isn't getting paid. "there are no funds to pay me for the work they've got me doing." doesn't mean that OP isn't going to be paid for the work that has been completed. 'Doing'. Not 'Done'. This, combined with the implication that it's a larger company, leads me to deduce that the project (used loosely, it could be anything from a global corporate takeover to someone picking fly shit out of pepper) is what's being stopped, not OP's employment. Because OP made a deliberate choice not to mention being laid off or fired. The theory that I advanced is 100% reasonable and plausible and completely in line with everything that OP said. On top of that it passes the sniff test of something that could happen in a likely corporate dominated environment. Just because you interpret it differently doesn't mean either of us is wrong. And it certainly doesn't make my reading comprehension skills 'abhorrent' and 'apalling'.

I think we're both trained differently to look at the same problem in a different light. "no funds to pay me for the work I'm doing" means, to me, that they won't get paid for their time. You're extrapolating and reading things differently about budgets and restructuring. There are many assumptions on your part to what OP is saying.

OP is in Australia, ding dong.

To be fair, that stuff ALSO happens in America.

Poor reading comprehension is also a part of what's wrong with America. OP is from Australia.