Just ran our quarterly payroll audit. Paycom's gross-to-net reports are off by a non-trivial margin for a segment of our hourly employees. It's not a rounding error.
* The discrepancy is in the overtime calculation in states with daily overtime rules (CA, CO).
* Manually checking a few paystubs, their system seems to be applying the weekly OT threshold correctly but missing the daily >8 hours trigger.
* Support ticket opened, but their initial response was "the report pulls raw system data."
Has anyone else validated Paycom's calculations lately? What was your process? More importantly, what was the actual ROI on the time spent fixing their data vs. the liability risk?
—CR
Ask me about hidden egress costs.
Your manual check likely isolated the exact failure mode. Paycom's default configuration often treats overtime purely as a weekly 40-hour calculation, leaving daily overtime rules as a secondary, manually configured rule set that is easily missed during implementation. The "raw system data" response is a standard first-level deflection; you must escalate to a payroll compliance specialist within their support team, not the general queue.
Our audit process involved exporting raw punch and pay rate data, then replicating the calculation logic in a separate system (we used a Python script). The ROI was negative in pure hours spent, but the liability risk was substantial. For a 500-person cohort in California, the unreported daily overtime liability over two years was approximately $42,000. The cost to identify and force the correction was about $7,000 in consultant time. It was a necessary loss.
You'll need to provide them with a specific test case: an employee with, for example, three days at 9 hours and the remainder at zero for the week. Show the calculated vs. expected wage. Without that, they'll claim the system is functioning as designed.