The suggestion doesn’t run counter to the concept of payslips, its just that Manager is inconsistent with handling payslips compared to invoices.
Sales Invoices only create obligations in the Customers subaccount under Accounts Receivable.
Purchase Invoices only create obligations in the Suppliers subaccount under Accounts Payable
Sales Invoices, Purchase Invoices, Payslips and Expense Claims are all primary entries.
Purchase Invoices, Payslips and Expense Claims are exactly of the same concept - obligations to pay a third party.
The fact that you can have Purchase Invoices displaying their status but Payslips not even though they can both commence from a button is due to a Manager inconsistency.
You have these parent and primary entry tabs relationships:
Customer + Sales Invoices - with status displayed
Suppliers + Purchase Invoices - with status displayed
Employees + Payslips - with status not displayed.
Therefore, Payslips exist in the exact same layer as Sales / Purchase Invoices.
However, Payslips aren’t currently displaying their status because Manager prevents individual payslips from being selected during the transaction process whereas with individual Sales / Purchases Invoices there isn’t this restriction.
Accounts Receivable + Customer + Invoice
Accounts Payable + Supplier + Invoice
Employees Clearing + Employee + ??? - should be Payslip.
Whilst one can explain the current approach with some form of self justification, it doesn’t distinguish the fact that Manager has this conflict in delivering a consistency of process.
It is understood the Expense Claims are different as they don’t have a parent tab.