Hi Bob,
Prior to consulting I was metals fab plant
manager with a Teamster's work force.
Employee pay was skills based and dependent on what they did.
A Shear operator could shift over to Shear Setup
Tech and his rate went up accordingly.
My welders were comped based on the welding
technology they were working with but they could
shift between TIG, MIG, and Gas.....all different
rates. If Cert weld was required, that was another set of rates.
There were about 60 rates in force.
BC
At 05:43 PM 12/2/2010, you wrote:
rcarlson@...
Mobile: 603-883-8093
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Prior to consulting I was metals fab plant
manager with a Teamster's work force.
Employee pay was skills based and dependent on what they did.
A Shear operator could shift over to Shear Setup
Tech and his rate went up accordingly.
My welders were comped based on the welding
technology they were working with but they could
shift between TIG, MIG, and Gas.....all different
rates. If Cert weld was required, that was another set of rates.
There were about 60 rates in force.
BC
At 05:43 PM 12/2/2010, you wrote:
>Robert (Bob) Carlson
>
>Id have to support that as well.... I have yet to work at a shop that
>pays variable per hour based on the type of activity an employee is
>engaging in throughout the day. That would be a nightmare to manage in
>my mind. If you pay that employee a consistent rate per hour then using
>his labor rate really represents one of the three cost components in
>your COGS (labor, burden and overhead).
>
>Rob Bucek
>
>Production Control Manager
>
>PH: (715) 284-5376 ext 311
>
>Mobile: (715)896-0590
>
>FAX: (715)284-4084
>
><<http://www.dsmfg.com/>http://www.dsmfg.com/>
>
>(Click the logo to view our site)
><<http://www.dsmfg.com/>http://www.dsmfg.com/>
>
>From:
><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>vantage@yahoogroups.com
>[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
>Of saab_barracuda
>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:05 PM
>To: <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>vantage@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Vantage] Re: VANTAGE 8.03.409C SQL COSTING PROBLEM-Opinion
>
>Not trying to be augmentative but at most companies this is only one pay
>rate per employee no matter what work they do. The labor cost is
>supposed to represent what it costs to pay the employee(s) to run the
>operation. And actuals are meant to represent actual costs. I do not see
>how charging a generic rate based on the resource would be better. We
>may have to agree to disagree on this one.
>
>And actually, the burden costs is calculated from the resource burden
>percentage and the employee labor rate. So it is consistent in this
>particular case. I absolutely agree Vantage has some serious quirks but
>I don't think this is one of them.
>
>--- In
><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>vantage@yahoogroups.com
><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>Robert Carlson <rcarlson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I understand your point but I disagree that the
> > labor rate for the production hour should come
> > from the Shop Employee file and not the Resource file.
> >
> > The Burden costs calculation in a Labor
> > transaction draws it's rate from the Resource,
> > not the Shop Employee.....it presents
> > inconsistent logic.......oh wait a minute, it's Vantage.
> >
> > By using the resource as the source of the labor
> > rate you could have "skills" based labor rates
> > instead of "one rate fits all work by an employee".
> >
> > I think for many your comments provide a direction to pursue.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:26 AM 12/2/2010, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >This is correct and it's been that way since
> > >I've been working with Vantage back to Ver 6. It
> > >actually makes sense if you think about it.
> > >Estimates are based on the resource and actuals
> > >are based on the employee labor rate that
> > >actually performs the work. This way you end up
> > >with a variance if for example a higher paid
> > >employee works a lower level job. Any other
> > >scheme would hide the true cost. You don't want
> > >the job costs to look peachy only to have the
> > >CFO to find problems with the balance sheet.
> > >
> > >The resource rates and employee rates should be
> > >tied closely together though. I go through once
> > >a year and update the resource rates based on a
> > >time weighted average of actual employee pay
> > >rates that worked in each resource. Note, the
> > >employee's "labor rate" is a separate field in a
> > >separate table from the "pay rate". But again,
> > >this should be closely monitored and adjusted as well.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Chris Clunn
> > >
> > >--- In
> > ><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:van
> tage%40yahoogroups.com>vantage@yahoogroups.com
><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > >Robert Carlson <rcarlson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The words I get from support are these:
> > > >
> > > > the production labor rate in the job labor
> > > > transaction is drawn from the labor rate field of
> > > > the shop employee....it is not drawn from the Resource
>Group/Resource.
> > > >
> > > > I have proved that the condition existed before
> > > > the introduction of 8.03.409C so it's not resultant from the SP &
>PA.
> > > >
> > > > I have changed the rates in the Shop Employee
> > > > Master File and have a BAQ to look at Employee
> > > > labor transactions. It appears that Support was
> > > > correct. The Costing Manual also says that Job
> > > > Labor Costing is based on the rate in the Shop Employee Master
>File.
> > > >
> > > > Seems counter-intuitive since it limits you to
> > > > one rate per employee vs using the RG approach
> > > > where you can have different rates based on the
> > > > Resource. The explanation of the RG rates are
> > > > that they are for "estimating" purposes only, not for reporting
>purposes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob Carlson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 04:50 PM 12/1/2010, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >In my case, crew size was OK in the resource groups.
> > > > >But... we found that some templates for methods
> > > > >had a zero for the crew size... so new methods
> > > > >based on these had $0 labor in quotes, PDRs etc...
> > > > >Crew size is probably something different than what you have
>going on.
> > > > >
> > > > >Anyway we had (and still have) job costing issues...
> > > > >Some of it has to do with various combination's
> > > > >of stock, NonStock, backflush, autoreceive and costing methods.
> > > > >
> > > > >If you have the time, I'd like to know more details about the
>jobs.
> > > > >
> > > > >We're on 8.03.409C/Progress
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert (Bob) Carlson
> > > > rcarlson@
> > > > Mobile: 603-883-8093
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Robert (Bob) Carlson
> > rcarlson@...
> > Mobile: 603-883-8093
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
rcarlson@...
Mobile: 603-883-8093
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]