The power change nobody talks about in labour hire

Late in the afternoon, a supervisor forwards a message from a worker asking whether their hours were received. Payroll checks the system. The timesheet is there, but approval hasn’t happened yet. The reply is sent manually, even though the information already exists in one of the tools being used.

That scenario still shows up across labour hire operations, particularly where employee self service is limited, and confirmation depends on follow-ups rather than system visibility. The work keeps moving, but information travels sideways instead of staying attached to the record it belongs to.

Who ends up confirming everything

The questions don’t arrive when timesheets are submitted. They arrive afterwards, once people expect to see what happened next. A worker checks whether hours were approved. A supervisor seeks confirmation that a change has been accepted. Payroll reopens the same screen to confirm the status that hasn’t changed since the last check.

Where access to employee self service is uneven, payroll becomes the point of confirmation by default. Not because decisions are unclear, but because visibility is fragmented. The same approval status is checked multiple times across the day, often within the same pay cycle.

That repetition doesn’t stop payroll from running. It fragments attention while it runs.

Where admin time is lost

A significant portion of time inside employee timesheet management is spent on checks that don’t advance processing. Screens are reopened. Approval histories are revisited. Status is relayed manually to people who can’t see it themselves.

This usually shows up in a familiar pattern:

• hours submitted, but the approval status isn’t visible to the worker

• edits applied, but the updated version isn’t obvious to the supervisor

• payroll closed, while invoicing relies on a different view of the same shift

None of these steps changes pay outcomes. They change how often payroll is interrupted and how many times the same record is handled. Over a week, those interruptions add up. Not as errors, but as repeated confirmations.

A common trigger is a minor correction made after submission, then referenced later during invoicing. The original entry is still visible somewhere, the edited one is visible somewhere else, and payroll gets asked which one counts.

How mobile timesheets changed expectations

When hours are submitted from a phone, timing tightens. Mobile timesheets are often completed immediately after a shift ends, not days later. That removes the delay at the front of the process and exposes the delay further down.

Let’s say a worker submits hours at 4.30pm. By the next morning, they expect to see whether those hours were approved, queried, or adjusted. When confirmation depends on a manual reply, the process starts to feel inconsistent, even when the pay is accurate.

Within D-Bit’s online platform, mobile timesheets feed directly into the same approval workflow that payroll uses. Submission status, edits, and approval history sit in one place rather than being inferred from emails or screenshots. That doesn’t remove errors. It changes when they surface and who can see them.

What stays manual when access is limited

Where employee self service isn’t configured properly, certain tasks stay manual by default. Payroll confirms submission. Payroll confirms approval. Payroll confirms whether a change was applied.

Those steps sit inside employee timesheet management, but they exist to bridge an access gap, not because payroll needs them to function. When access improves, those confirmations don’t disappear. They stop landing on the same people.

This is usually where teams pause to review how visibility is set up rather than how payroll is processed. Read here how approval visibility affects pay queries and follow-ups in labour-hire environments.

Where confirmation starts repeating

These checks tend to appear early in the day, once submissions and approvals are already in the system:

• an approved timesheet is visible in payroll, but not visible to the worker

• a corrected entry applied after submission, while the original version remains visible elsewhere

• approval timestamps are stored separately from the hours being reviewed

• payroll reopening the same record to confirm status rather than change it

Each item can be verified on screen. None of them stops payroll from running. They increase how often the same record is referenced.

Inside employee timesheet management, this repetition usually points to uneven access rather than unclear approvals. When mobile timesheets submit hours quickly, that unevenness becomes visible sooner. Where employee self service access is limited, payroll becomes the confirmation layer by default.

What changes when access is aligned

The real change isn’t faster payroll or fewer errors. It’s where certainty lives. When employee self service carries submission and approval status with the timesheet, workers and supervisors stop waiting for confirmation and payroll stops acting as the gatekeeper of information. The work still moves at the same pace, but responsibility shifts closer to where decisions are made.

That shift also supports record-keeping expectations. Australian employers are expected to retain clear, accessible records of hours, approvals, and pay history, as outlined in the Fair Work Ombudsman's record-keeping guidance.

For a closer look at how an online workforce management platform supports timesheet visibility and approval workflows, read more on D-Bit’s website.