Skip to content

Matthew Schinckel

My feedback

3 results found

  1. 10 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matthew Schinckel supported this idea  · 
  2. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matthew Schinckel supported this idea  · 
  3. 57 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matthew Schinckel supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Matthew Schinckel commented  · 

    This is actually turning into a pretty big deal.

    It's compounded by the fact that an employee may only have one timesheet for a given period, even if the existing timesheet is already processed. This breaks the ability for using timesheets to do corrections (or advances, but I suggest that's not really the best way to do that anyway).

    We are not prepared to send through timesheets as DRAFT, as they have already been approved in our system, and approving 300 timesheets again is a fairly big ask.

    A workaround might be to send through the data as an EarningsRateLine in a Payslip, but in that case the cost cannot by associated with a Tracking Category.

Feedback and Knowledge Base