按集体合同生成薪酬工作簿

B better follows the CBA’s wage logic: Payroll!O6 adds the 25% electronic premium to a synthesizer substitute’s rehearsal and sound-check pay, whereas A’s Payroll!M8 special branch applies it only to performances. The sample synth-sub total is therefore $1,461.33 in B versus $1,367.72 under A’s formulas. B also checks quartet counts and allows multiple woodwind premium designations subject to employer review; A incorrectly flags those as violations and imposes a highest-only premium cap absent from the excerpt. Both provide per-person category totals and centralized editable rates. A handles service-date rate selection and the eight-show cutoff better. Neither fully satisfies the robust compliance requirement: B continues using the capped synth-sub formula at 8+ shows and prices all services using the week-ending rate. Both check sound-check frequency only within the current week rather than across the engagement, and neither checks the required ten-minute rehearsal intermissions after fifty minutes.

A is closer to the CBA overall. Both workbooks calculate and separately itemize the requested payroll categories. However, A applies the electronic-instrument premium to the synth substitute’s rehearsal and sound-check earnings, consistent with the “all work” provision. B’s Payroll!M8 premiums only performances for substitutes below eight shows, omitting approximately $88.74 before vacation pay in the sample. A also checks quartet membership counts and treats multiple woodwind premium designees as requiring employer verification; B lacks a quartet-count check and incorrectly flags multiple woodwind designations as violations. Neither fully meets the robustness requirement: A retains the special capped synth-sub calculation at eight or more shows despite warning that it no longer applies, and prices every service using week-ending rates. B correctly switches calculations at eight shows and uses each service’s date, but ignores rate effective-to dates. Both check sound-check frequency only within the entered week, rather than across the engagement or eight-week restriction period.

Both workbooks have a Rates tab with effective-dated wages, plus roster, schedule and attendance inputs, CBA flags, and per-person payroll by category. Both flag the 9:30am rehearsal as a warning. Their per-person figures match for the regular musicians (e.g., woodwind $3,989.49). The decisive difference is the sample's synth substitute. A's premium formula pays 25% only on performances ($62.77) and leaves the $278.35 rehearsal and $76.59 sound check without premium, even though Art. 4.2.f.i requires 25% for all work. Its README states this choice, and the sub totals $1,367.72. B uses Sub_Prem*R_Base*shows + P_Elec*(rehearsal + sound check) for $151.50, giving $1,461.33 and a $30,759.13 grand total against A's $30,665.51. A would therefore underpay synth subs on any such week. B's rule handling is also closer to the CBA in several places. Multiple woodwind premiums are a designation warning in B but a VIOLATION in A, despite Art. 4.2.c's employer designation. B tests the quartet condition (four players, entire string section), while A pays 15% to anyone flagged. B's sound-check frequency check uses engagement length; A collects that input, but its check ignores it. B has a meal-break column for Art. 7.5, while A can only flag a single long row or rely on splitting it. B's validations show error alerts; A's do not. B also reports when no rate row covers the week, whereas A silently falls back to the first row. A has real usability advantages: automatic Art. 7.4 waiver detection (B uses a manual Y/N), rates looked up by service date, an overlap check, Payroll counters that include Schedule warnings, and a signature block. B's Payroll tab does not surface the Schedule warning, and some of its headers are clipped. These strengths do not outweigh a contract-pay error in a payroll tool, so B is the better deliverable.

Both workbooks meet the task. Each has a dated Rates table, a Roster, a Schedule, an attendance grid, a Payroll sheet, and red/amber/blue CBA flags. Their calculations match for every weekly musician in the sample: guarantee $2,008.50, rehearsal $278.35, sound check $76.59, the same premium percentages (20% concertmaster and lead trumpet; 15% viola, cello, bass, guitar, horn and woodwind) and the same doubling percentages (25% and 45%). The key difference is the synthesizer substitute. A pays the Art. 4.2.f.ii rate of 150% × base for the show plus 25% of base per show. It also applies the Art. 4.2.f.i 25% electronic premium to the sub's rehearsal and sound-check pay, because that article covers "all work" (premium $151.50; total $1,461.33). B, by design, pays the sub's premium only on the show (total $1,367.72). B may therefore underpay by about $93.62 including vacation, which is itself a contract-compliance risk. A also handles several other points more carefully: - Woodwind: multiple woodwind premiums get a WARNING, matching the CBA's "Employer shall designate" wording. B marks a second woodwind 'first local' as a VIOLATION. - String quartet: A checks that exactly four players form the whole string section. - Meal breaks: A accepts meal-break input before applying the 5-hour rule. - Rates: A flags a CONFLICT when no rate row covers the week. B silently falls back to the first row. - Audits: A ties audits to scheduled services in the attendance grid. - Evidence: A's rendered Payroll sheet shows every per-person category total and a grand total ($30,759.13) with no errors. B has real strengths: - It detects the Art. 7.4 minimum-call waiver automatically. - It flags overlapping services. - It tracks local hire status. - It flags a 20% first-horn premium when a trumpet is present. - It shows violation and warning counters on the Payroll sheet. - It includes a signature block. However, B's Payroll sheet is not shown in the renders, and some of its rendered layouts (Rates, Attendance headers) are cosmetically rough. On balance, A's more defensible pay logic and verified output give it the edge.