Loading
Because each one solves its own problem. A roster spreadsheet here, an attendance book there, a local interpretation of the leave policy somewhere else — each reasonable, none comparable.
Then somebody asks for headcount or absence by site and the answer is assembled by hand from files kept to different standards.
Sites are part of one reporting structure, so an employee moving between them keeps one record and one history rather than being created again.
Rosters, working patterns and approval routing are per site, because those genuinely differ. What does not differ — the personnel record, the leave entitlement rules, the audit trail — stays central.
It will not reconcile genuinely different local employment rules for you. Where obligations differ by state or country, you configure that difference deliberately.
And it does not optimise rosters. It holds the one you build.
Approvals route correctly when a manager covers three sites, because routing follows the reporting line rather than a per-site configuration.
And attendance and absence reports compare sites on the same basis, which is the comparison that was previously impossible.
Yes — approvals follow the reporting line across them.
Yes, and their own patterns and routing. The record stays central.
One record continues, with the transfer as a dated event.
We will run it end to end on your own numbers in half an hour, and tell you honestly which parts Treepie does not improve.