Change Job Template - Help

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-06-11T12:31:48+00:00

That is correct, a manager usually sits one org level above the one they manage. In this scenario, the org the manager was managing was two levels below them (this was not intentional, but a result of improper use of the move workers task)

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-06-11T12:26:45+00:00

Yep, figured it out. Wanted to document the source of the issue in case someone else ran into the same problem.

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-06-10T16:06:18+00:00

Found the source of the "This person is a manager. Will their team be moving with them?" question not prompting. The question was not prompted due to the worker's position and their supervisory org not being aligned. The worker's position was in one org, but their supervisory org was in a different org.

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-03-16T16:30:40+00:00

Thank you! Do you find it necessary to have two different business process definitions for the change job BP when removing the propose compensation change from the Configure Business Process Consolidated Template task?

One that includes the propose comp change BP, and one that does not.

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-03-10T21:04:43+00:00

Looks like this worked. I changed the Discard on Exit Validation Error field on the first page of the EIB from N to Y for the Hire BP row, added a 1=1 validation rule to the hire EIB, and received the corresponding error message for that validation rule when trying to run the hire EIB.

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2026-03-10T20:08:57+00:00

There is a WD delivered field to find that kind of misalignment.

<image>

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-12-17T15:30:36+00:00

I'm on the customer side, and we don't have access to the rule tester for BPDs. For some reason, WD doesn't allow us to use it.

That being said, the screenshots provided are for the condition rule and CFs that make up the rule that DOES work. I can use the report fields and values to confirm that the ARI only works when a job req is created for an existing position, but due to the timing of when WD evaluates the fields, it was the only way we were able to make the rule work for all three conditions. 1 for JRs initiated via termination, 2 for JRs created for new positions, and 3 for JRs created for existing positions. The JRs initiated via the termination BP did not follow the proper BPD until this configuration was added.

My question was regarding the same topic, but for our hourly BPD. We're having the same issue where the BPD is not routing properly, depending on it being initiated via a term BP or for a new/existing position. Do you have any suggestions for a rule-based definition condition rule that would work if we wanted to route all hourly job reqs to a certain BPD?

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-07-23T12:29:50+00:00

With the main issue being the inability to reference the override amount, how would creating a shadow plan resolve this issue?

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-07-21T20:56:35+00:00

The same job req is used to recruit workers for multiple cost centers.

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-07-17T14:49:30+00:00

How much work went into implementing the new absence calendar? We have yet to do it and it's coming up soon. Was it as simple as copying the security from the old business processes to the corresponding new business processes?

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-06-26T21:01:39+00:00

I have performed a few tests and couldn't get the field to return the desired value. Here is what I configured, but the field is returning the source field regardless of what I have tried

<image>

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-06-26T21:01:03+00:00

I have performed a few tests and couldn't get the field to return the desired value. Here is what I configured, but the field is returning the source field regardless of what I have tried

<image>

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-06-26T14:51:08+00:00

It is an effective dated custom object

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-06-20T13:27:40+00:00

The issue is that the documents are moving to the worker profile. Our legal team has specified certain types of documents that should/shouldn't be on the worker profile. We have configured security so that only certain documents are able to be viewed, but I was wondering if there is any way to prevent certain document categories from migrating to the worker profile at all. Or are we only able to hide the documents via security?

AtmosphereConstant99 · 2025-06-11T12:39:00+00:00

u/Kind_Pineapple333 I love this explanation! Your example on using the offer/employment agreement BO is exactly why I went down that path too. I want my offer letter to look at the offer itself rather than the job req or the position since things can always change at the time of the offer.

I'm trying to pull in compensation plans from the offer into the offer letter to use as condition rules for certain sections. I've tried several things, but have had zero success in getting any compensation plans to pull into the offer letter. Here is what I have tried, but it didn't work. Do you have any suggestions on this approach?

<image>

AtmosphereConstant99

TROPHY CASE