按集体合同生成薪酬工作簿

B is the stronger, though incomplete, model for varied orchestra configurations. Its roster formulas allow electronic and quartet premiums alongside instrument/chair premiums, permit multiple employer-designated woodwinds, and flag quartet membership counts other than four. A instead uses MAX() across premiums—a highest-premium-only restriction not stated in the excerpt—and flags multiple designated woodwinds as violations. B also provides meal-break inputs, checks gap and combined-hours conditions for claimed rehearsal waivers, and has input-validation error alerts enabled; A’s alerts are disabled. A has important advantages: service-date-based wage lookups, synthesizer/substitute gating and a two-audits-per-book cap, plus substantially more readable supplied rendered pages. B calculates audit pay from any entered audit count without adequately checking eligibility or books learned, and applies one selected contract year’s rates to the entire week. Neither fully meets the task. Both omit checks for the required ten-minute rehearsal intermissions and cannot enforce sound-check frequency across an engagement or successive eight-week periods. Neither fully validates the daytime/same-location rehearsal-waiver conditions or the entire-acoustic-string-section quartet requirement. These are substantive compliance gaps, not merely presentation issues.

A is closer to the CBA-based task. Both calculate per-person payroll-category totals and centralize contract rates, but A checks that four quartet members are marked, permits multiple employer-designated woodwind premiums, and flags missing engagement types and instrument counts. B lacks the quartet-size check, treats multiple designated woodwinds as violations, and introduces a highest-single-premium rule not stated in the excerpt. A also enables input-validation error alerts, whereas B disables them. B has stronger service-date rate lookups and two-audits-per-book controls, and its supplied rendered pages are more readable, but A provides more faithful conflict checking overall. Neither fully meets the task: both omit checks for ten-minute intermissions after fifty rehearsal minutes and assess sound-check frequency only within the current week rather than across the engagement.

Both workbooks are formula-driven and apply the CBA to the sample in the same way: the greater of the weekly guarantee or shows × base, 5 rehearsal hours, the 1-hour sound check, premiums and doubling on all work, the synth sub at the lesser of 150% or the guarantee plus 25% per show, two audits at base, and 5.5% vacation. Reading the formulas, the per-person results should match apart from rounding; for example, the synth sub comes to about $1,367.72 in both. Both also flag the 9:30 AM rehearsal start as an amber warning. The difference is robustness and usability. A's advantages: - Its effective-dated rate table prices each service by its own date, so new contract rates apply automatically and a week spanning a rate change is handled. B requires manually selecting one active year for the whole week. - Premium % is derived from instrument, first-local and chair inputs, so a contractor is not simply picking a percentage. B's premium is a contractor-selected category with limited cross-checking. - Audit pay is capped from audits attended and books learned, with a flag. B takes a manual paid-audit count with no two-per-book check. - A flags sub-3-hour rehearsals (Art. 7.1), overlapping services, chair and instrument mismatches, and premium fields set for non-local hires. B silently pays the minimum call without flagging it. - The Min-call waiver is computed automatically from paired rehearsals. - Capacity is larger: 40 musicians and 30 services, versus 30 and 25. - Attendance is separate from a compact Payroll sheet showing per-person category totals, violation and warning counters, and a signature block. B puts everything on a 46-column sheet with pay in AF–AS, and its banner counts only violations, so it reports no conflicts while the amber warning stands. B's advantages: - Money lines are rounded to the cent. - Data validation has error alerts, and the instructions state the sheets are protected. - It has a meal-break input and a string-quartet exact-four check. - Sound-check conflicts are red rather than amber. - It includes a week summary block and a clear pay-category map. These guardrails are useful, but they do not outweigh A's stronger automation, year-to-year updating and cleaner submission sheet.

Both workbooks are strong and functionally similar. Each has a rate sheet, roster, schedule, attendance input, 3-hour minimum-call logic, 1-hour/2-hour sound-check pay and the MAX weekly-guarantee treatment. Each applies 25%/10% doubling, the synth-sub lesser-of formula plus 25% per show, 2 audits at base, and 5.5% vacation on total earnings. On the sample the logic gives the same pay: performances $18,453.09, rehearsals $2,783.50, premiums about $3,135, doubling about $3,427 and a total near $30,665.51. Both flag only the 9:30 AM rehearsal, as a warning. The difference is robustness and usability. B derives premium % from instrument group, first-local status and chair. Eligibility therefore follows the CBA, a synth automatically gets 25%, and chair/instrument mismatches are flagged. A's premium is a manual dropdown: a synth set to 'None', a concertmaster premium on a cellist, or a 15% premium on an ineligible instrument is not flagged. B also caps payable audits at 2 per book, flags audit pay for non-synth-subs as a violation, shows a note for rehearsals under 3 hours, checks overlaps, and auto-detects the Art. 7.4 waiver. Its render shows the offending time-in cell itself highlighted. A has no audit-count cap or check, and it does not flag short rehearsals. For year-to-year updates, B's effective-dated table selects rates by date and handles a week spanning a rate change, while A needs a manual active-year selection. B has more capacity (40 musicians/30 services vs 30/25). Its Payroll sheet is a compact 19-column per-person table with violation and warning counters and a signature block, which suits weekly submission. A's per-person totals sit in columns AF–AS of a 46-column sheet. A does have real advantages: sheet protection, enforced validation, line-level cent rounding, a meal-break input, a quartet-count flag, a more-than-8-shows warning, a compliance banner, and red severity for sound-check breaches where B only warns. B also has gaps: no quartet-count check, an unused engagement-length input, and an unsupported no-stacking assumption that A does not share. Overall B has a modest edge because it better prevents and exposes contractor input conflicts and gives a cleaner submission form.