How large is your payroll?

The only reservation I have, is in a company of 60 people, to use the QB payroll process you must go into single user mode ('03) when you transmit to QB. '06 might not require this with the new DB engine. It can be a logistics pain to get everyone logged off for the ten or fifteen minutes it takes. Otherwise I remember a post here from someone with 250 employees. I can't see the data entry or check printing being a problem other than the number of entries which you have no matter the software.

Go for it Allan. Recommend QB. Just do it.

QuickBooks should work just fine with 60 employees, although I have to be honest, I'm not speaking from personal experience. Still, I can't imagine any difficulties in running 60 employees over, lets say 10. It's certainly not the largest payroll I've ever seen in QuickBooks.

-Elw00de

What in the world are you talking about? This site will have at most two QB users, and 99% of the time only one. My concerns are the payroll volume.

I also forgot to mention that payroll is run bi-weekly so only 26 runs per year. This migration will probably not happen until late in 2006 so I guess by then a lot of new information will be out there on how well the new database performs.

Still would like to hear from others with first hand experience.

So I see. Now you are going to ask questions so you can insult those who answer you.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. --Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman

I can assure you that I read your reply more than once and no insult intended, I have no idea what you ar taking about. You will have to excuse me but asking questions is not something I do often in this group. I am a newbie in this area.

In the past when it came to concerns about volume limitations I always gravitated towards recomending a mid-range solution, but now with the new database in QB I may have to adjust my thinking.

Allan:

Think about what QB does for payroll. Part one is entry of the information for each check, the bill if it was A/R. Part two is the transmission via the net to the payroll service. I think this is about one minute to connect and at most five seconds per employee. The third part is the printing of checks, just like print checks from A/R. We both know that QB can handle 60 bills to be paid twice a month, why would 60 employees to be paid be any different?

I'm not sure what you mean by volume. Are you worried that 60 more names in a list is so many you will go over the 14000 limit? Are you worried the reports will break with 60 names? Are you worried about how long it is going to take with 60 active employees?

I know I saw posts here from someone with 250 active employees in QB. His problem wasn't the payroll, it was that the company had grown so large in all aspects A/R, A/P, Inventory, etc. that he had outgrown QB in general, not that the payroll part was to big by itself.

There is a correlation between the number of employees and the number of invoices, the number of bills, etc. Are you asking if the average company of

60 employees has too much volume for QB? Think of that, how many $ does each employee need to generate to keep all 60 employed, is that too big for QB?

Allan there is also the question of time sheets? Does this company track billable time back to the customer? Doing so will require more data entry time in the payroll screens. QB isn't the best in this respect but it isn't the worst either.

Maybe you need to set up a test company and see if which volume? time? report? is the specific concern of yours is going to be the problem.

If your question was is anyone able to use QB payroll with 60+ employees, the answer is yes.

What I am trying to say Allan is, it isn't the payroll module of QB that is going to be the likely sticky wicket, it is that 60 people will generate a lot of other paperwork and that other stuff is more likely to be the problem. One invoice per day per employee and there isn't a problem, 20 invoices per day per employee and you have a volume problem with QB. That is something only you know because you know what industry the company is in and should know is historical average daily transaction load.

Your last comment about the new engine seems to make me think you want an answer to a very specific question, "will XYZ company work," to which there isn't one except try it yourself.

My only real answer can be if the company fits QB otherwise, an additional 120 transcations a month shouldn't break that.

Your point well taken and appreciated. It should be noted that a payroll transition is unlike other transactions in that there can be quite a few General Ledger accounts affected with each paycheck.

I am not that concerned with the volume of the other transactions because their front end operations are being handled by another vertical Mid-Range application running on Microsoft's SQL. server.

When the time comes I'm pretty confident that I will recommend the QB route rather than upgrade their existing DOS software to the windows version.

I'm going to suggest an answer that has absolutely nothing to do with QuickBooks. If you want to avoid the hassle of a payroll, use an outside service such as Paychex or ADP. These companies specialize in doing payroll, and they have the systems and personnel to do it right. Plus, if they make an error they will respond to the notices and pay the penalties. Payroll administration is a thankless job in which no one recognizes if you do things right, and everyone notices if you make the slightest errors. Errors can be very costly. This is not where you want to be...let someone else do it.

This client has been processing their payroll internally for over 12 years without a single problem. The time they spend processing inhouse takes them the same amount of time as they would spend if they used ADP.

I'm also their CPA /Part time controller and I make sure there are no errors. It's my job and would rather not recommend handing over part of my livelyhood to ADP. I also charge less than ADP and have a lot faster turn around.

I do payroll taxes when clients insist, but I urge them to hire Paychex or ADP. Those companies will do a far better job than I could, and will charge them far less than I would. It's a business I don't want to process, and I don't want them to do it, either. Certain things are best left to experts. I have no desire to become an expert in payroll taxes.

Yes there are many clients that I to would always recommend outsourcing their payroll. However, there are those that have the trained staff on hand where it makes sense to do it in-house. Your statement sounds more like a personal preference rather than one based on client needs.

Allen,

We do approx 100 employees semimonthly with QB 2003 Pro.

No sweat at all. Generates all the tax info for submission to EFTPS, 401k deposit data, etc.

We formerly used Quickbooks payroll with direct deposit, but they got too expensive when we reached 50 employees. At this scale it is a lot cheaper to do it ourselves.

I get writers cramp from signing the checks, but no sweat.

*Watt

Thank you. I was looking for first hand experiences. Spoke to the client and when the time comes they will migrate to QB.

Look into CheckMagic. It prints Quickbooks checks and payroll checks on blank stock and it can print an image file as a signature. The banks won't mind the sig.

It's not a quality application but it works. I'm just a customer.

//