The dispute is rarely about honesty
When hours are disputed, the conversation usually sounds like a disagreement about trust. It almost never is. It is two records that do not match — the plan on the rota and the shift as somebody remembers it three weeks later — and neither of them was written down where the work happened, so neither of them can settle the question.
- The rota is a plan. It says a shift was intended, not that it happened.
- The paper sheet is written at the end of the shift, or at the end of the week, from memory — usually by the person whose hours it records.
- The group chat records that something happened, not when. It is a message stream, and nobody searches it for a Tuesday in March.
- The reconstruction happens at month-end, under time pressure, by somebody who was not there.
Every one of those is a record made somewhere other than the place the work happened. That is the whole problem, and it is why the argument cannot be won by either side: both of them are describing a memory.
What a tap records
An NFC tag is a sticker. It goes on site — at the door, in the plant room, wherever the crew starts — and it holds an identifier and nothing else. When a worker taps it with their phone, the platform records who, where and when: the worker, the site the tag belongs to, and a timestamp.
The tags track the whole shift — start, breaks, end — so what gets recorded is the shift, not a single tap. That matters, because a shift is what payroll pays for and what the client is invoiced for; an attendance ping would settle nothing.
No handset is issued for this. The only thing that goes on site is the tag, and any phone with NFC reads it; where a phone cannot read tags, or a site has none, the mobile clock-in records the same shift at the same site. The mechanism is described in full on the clock-in and hours page.
Why the argument stops
It would be easy to sell this as verification — as though the fix were to make the hours harder to fake. That is not where the disputes go. They go because the hour is now written down where it happened, by the person who worked it, at the moment it started, and both sides are looking at the same line.
The question changes shape. It stops being “prove you were there on the 14th” and becomes “that shift is recorded as starting at seven, not six” — a question with an answer, askable while the week is still current rather than three weeks later when nobody remembers.
What changes for the worker
The worker sees the same record the manager sees, which is the part that is usually left out of the pitch. Their hours are visible to them as the week runs, in their own language, on their own phone — so a mistake is something they can raise on Thursday rather than something they discover on the payslip. In practice this removes more arguments than any verification feature, because the argument at month-end is usually not about dishonesty at all: it is about nobody having seen the number before.
The employee view is described on the employee portal page, and the same hours are what produce the timesheets and the payroll input on payroll and timesheets.
What it does not do
The clock-in records when the work happened, not whether it was done well — the checklist and the inspection are what cover the standard, and they are a different module. It also does not decide the rules: minimum shift lengths, premiums for evenings and Sundays, and whether travel time between sites counts as working time all come from your collective agreement, and Moonfoos applies what you configure. The payroll guide works through that side of it.