It may be a bit off-topic, but I like the idea of grouping employees by categories, I’m messing with frepple and the concept there is that each employee can have skills and the routing steps can have skills needed. When frepple does the plan, it computes based on the resources available (restricted by skills).
Maybe these groups could be also used for assigning skills (categories) to each employee, so for me each employee can have multiple categories. I’m wondering how the cost can be computed if there are multiple categories by employee.
I know this is discussion for another topic, but I think that affects this in order to have modularity.
This seems the feature that we are requesting, but I see you also have payroll associated to the cost price. But as we do not have any payroll management for now we do plan to manage it.
After reading through this discussion, the issue and the MR, I think there is a misunderstanding. I also was thrown of track when reading the name salary scale. So I read the proposal again and tried to understand it.
Correct me if I’m wrong (please don’t crush me ) but I think:
@pokoli talks about employee costs the customer is charged with
@ced talks about employee costs for the company and the salary of the employee
There are a lot of companies who charge a customer a certain cost per hour and it doesn’t matter in what salary scale that employee exist. Look for example at a production company with a lot of employees.
So creating groups and add a cost price to it with a history like the current employee_cost is a nice thing. Employees can be added to a group and based on that, their cost price can be calculated. When the next year the cost price has to be changed, only the cost price of the group has to be changed and not every single employee.
This is not about HRM or payroll management. Because then you are starting to talk about the individual employee again.
You crushed it. What you describe is exactly what I wanted to implement.
This is exactly the use case our user was requesting. As far as they explained to me it is a common feature that other ERP system (he mentioned SAP IIRC) provide by default.
Whoa! The confusion comes from that in Tryton we always name concepts from the company perspective.
I think this blueprint should be abandoned because it is full confusion.
Then I do not understand what you are proposing here:
Is this message that makes no sense? Or what is the issue here?
P.S: If you do not want to have such feature just say it clear instead of making useless loops on the discussion. As you are our Project Leader you can just decide that without any argumentation.
Why abandon (should Add a document on stock consignment then also be abandoned because it is for now confusing)? The text of the proposal has to be improved so it makes everything clear. Maybe it’s a good improvement to let a native English speaker read the text and suggest changes / improvements.
I’m leaning toward ‘group’ because we are talking about a the cost price for a group of employees. So on company.employee you get a many2one field called cost_price_group and when calculating the cost price for an employee, it will look if the group is filled and take that cost price instead of the one on the employee itself. Also it should be made impossible to have both filled. So if one is filled the other will be readonly.
I would name the new model company.employee.cost_price_group or something like that. That model should also have the possibility to add new cost_prices by date like you now can do per employee.
Looking at the timesheet_cost module I would expect that this can be added directly into the module instead of creating a new one.
Because all the comment below are a complete mess following the misunderstanding.
I prefer to have a new proposal on which every can contribute using the proper wording.
But I still think people are not talking about the same concept because I still see the word “cost” used.
If this is the subject:
Then it is not a cost because it is not a cost for the company, it is a revenue. And this has nothing to do with the cost price field on employee.
What are we talking here is that the hourly cost of the employee to be used on the timesheet_cost module (and so as part as project cost when timesheet cost).
My initial proposal was to use “Employee Category”, but I’m also happy with “Employee Cost Category” or even “Employee Cost Group”.
Once we agree on a name, I do not think it will be very complex to have an implementation for it. I even have a MR for it which is also stalled probably because of the same missunderstading
Why are we making this so complicated? Cmon’ the feature can be just explained in two sentences:
I think @edbo and me are having the same understanding as its sentences clearly describes our needs.
But it seems you understand something else. As far as you do not explain what you understand I can not say if we are having the same understanding or we are understanding something else.
So please, explain yourself so we can tell if we are on the same path or we are just saying something else.
What are the diferences that you see?
Nor we can understand you if you do not give more information.
This statement is clear. And this is not a cost for the company because it is for the customer. So it is a revenue for the company.
Just like a sale for the company is a purchase for the customer.
There is no Tryton feature to charge a company for the cost of an exact employee. We only charge for the list price of a task, which is never related to an employee. Or what feature are you talking about?
So I do not agree with the following concept:
It is not the cost the customer is charged with, but the cost the company is counting as estimation for the time spent by the employee of such category. I already explained that:
Are we understanding each other now? Or do you need some more clarifications?
) but I think: