I have neither misunderstood nor ignored @Rajwani’s points, all of which were addressing payslips, not the Payslip Summary report you have used to illustrate your comments. I also confined my remarks to payslips, not reports. So let me illustrate what I have meant about payslips providing full visibility if payslip items are defined correctly.
With two payslip earning items defined, Regular wages and Pay reductions, a payslip can be produced that shows the full amount earned per the terms of an employment agreement, as well as the reduction for whatever reason. In this example, there are also a deduction for income tax and a contribution to retirement:
Your objection seems to be to Manager’s use of the phrase Gross pay, which you apparently want to restrict to the contractual amount normally earned. The program, however, uses that phrase to refer to the sum of all positive and negative earnings items. You may not personally like the phrase, but its use is perfectly legitimate. Looking up gross in the dictionary, you can find this definition:
TOTAL, whole, entire, complete, full, overall, comprehensive, aggregate; before deductions, before tax
In other words, gross pay is not the amount that could or should have been earned, but the total or aggregate amount actually earned. The antonym is given as “net,” also consistent with Manager’s use; net pay is the pay after deductions. So Manager is not wrong, as you insist.
Could you argue that the Pay reduction in my example should be called a deduction? You could, but you would be arguing semantics. Manager’s developer chose to reserve that term only for payslip items that would be owed to someone else on the employee’s behalf. There is nothing wrong with that usage either.
No, the report does not indicate that. It indicates what the employee actually earned, which is what it is supposed to do. It is a summary. If you want the details on a report, the Payslip Totals per Item and Employee gives them to you:
