Replies

"Sorry Dawgg, you’ve understated the problem by a factor of 5 or 10."

For Dawgg's assumption to be true, over 50% of labor costs in any given firm would have to be dedicated to compliance.

Effectively that means that if lower level workers share compliance tasks proportionately with Management, then fully 50% of your staff is doing full-time compliance.
That's ridiculous. The only firms I can think of where that might approach the truth is medical. And even then we have systems built that help manage the compliance burden.
To support Balding Eagles claim that Dawgg understated the case by 5 to 10 times. You'd need (5x50%)/(5x50%+50%) = 5/6 or 83% of your workforce dedicated to compliance. 91% if he understated it 10 times.

"Sorry Dawgg, you’ve understated the problem by a factor of 5 or 10."

For Dawgg's assumption to be true, over 50% of labor costs in any given firm would have to be dedicated to compliance.

Effectively that means that if lower level workers share compliance tasks proportionately with Management, then fully 50% of your staff is doing full-time compliance.
That's ridiculous. The only firms I can think of where that might approach the truth is medical. And even then we have systems built that help manage the compliance burden.
To support Balding Eagles claim that Dawgg understated the case by 5 to 10 times. You'd need (5x50%)/(5x50%+50%) = 5/6 or 83% of your workforce dedicated to compliance. 91% if he understated it 10 times.

I was Corporate Director of Finance for a firm that had 3000 employees.

Maybe we could have gotten by with only 25 in accounting if there wasn't any tax compliance.

And of the 30 or so in HR maybe we could have gotten by with 15.
You could count all 3 staff lawyers as compliance. Though I think they spent most of their time on lawsuits, that had nothing to do with governments.
A small portion of management time was spent on compliance. There were 85 directors so lets add another 10 positions to the compliance log.
All employees had to get some annual training in stuff like sexual harrassment and other HR compliance type stuff, so let's allocate 2.5 days out of 250 workdays for compliance training or 1% of the entire workforce. That' would equal 30 full time equivalents.
We didn't produce any harmful chemicals or building new plants so EPA left us alone.
If OSHA ever looked at us, the HR staff handled it, and I've already allocated half of them to compliance.
So let's see thats 25-Accounting, 15-HR, 3-Lawyers, 10-for management time, 30 for staff training. That's a total of 83 out of 3000. 2.7%.
Compliance is a pain in the ass. And nobody likes it. But the majority of labor costs???? Seriously????
Quit making unsubstantiated claims.

I was Corporate Director of Finance for a firm that had 3000 employees.

Maybe we could have gotten by with only 25 in accounting if there wasn't any tax compliance.

And of the 30 or so in HR maybe we could have gotten by with 15.
You could count all 3 staff lawyers as compliance. Though I think they spent most of their time on lawsuits, that had nothing to do with governments.
A small portion of management time was spent on compliance. There were 85 directors so lets add another 10 positions to the compliance log.
All employees had to get some annual training in stuff like sexual harrassment and other HR compliance type stuff, so let's allocate 2.5 days out of 250 workdays for compliance training or 1% of the entire workforce. That' would equal 30 full time equivalents.
We didn't produce any harmful chemicals or building new plants so EPA left us alone.
If OSHA ever looked at us, the HR staff handled it, and I've already allocated half of them to compliance.
So let's see thats 25-Accounting, 15-HR, 3-Lawyers, 10-for management time, 30 for staff training. That's a total of 83 out of 3000. 2.7%.
Compliance is a pain in the ass. And nobody likes it. But the majority of labor costs???? Seriously????
Quit making unsubstantiated claims.