3 ms·
You make two assumptions: 1) There is "one" way of representing payroll data. There's not. When you get a none trivial amount of clients, all their edge cas
by bigsassy 15y ago
You make two assumptions:
1) There is "one" way of representing payroll data. There's not. When you get a none trivial amount of clients, all their edge cases put together destroy any ability to fit the data into one conceptual model elegantly.
2) Companies have control over payroll rules. Large companies often can't simplify their systems due to contracts or the subsequent employee mutiny. Unless you want to get sued, lose the lawsuit, and pay out the nose (which I've seen happen), you can't just change how you do payroll on a dime.
Not to mention, there's a ton of disfunction too. Payroll managers aren't always the brightest tools in the shed. One project I worked on lead to the payroll manager getting fired over "bad stuff" I uncovered. And then as I uncovered more stuff his replacement was let go too.
...payroll can be a total clusterfuck. Avoid at all cost.
- onemoreact 15y ago1) The only conceptual model I think needs to apply is the how things are taxed. Granted some organizations have edge cases in how they pay taxes (or how they try to hide things) but I think innate complexity dominates unique edge cases when it comes to the tax code. 2) I would argue that much of this complexity shows up because many companies negotiate while ignoring the cost of adding complexity. Company wants to minimize cost, workers want to maximize benefits, complexity is a dead weight that benefits nobody. Once things have been negotiated it's hard to change, but during negotiation they is no need to end up with yet another edge case. PS: I don't think organizations end up spending 100+ million on their payroll systems because it's easy. I just think being proactive lets some companies minimize those costs. EX: Is Google's payroll system ugly?