[DannyTN]

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.

[Mad Dawgg]

"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."

Se your problem is you don't even understand your own math.

All of the salaries of the compliance people are government make-do work they don't factor in to actually making or producing the product they are just lost dollars that are wasted on inefficiency because the government sez so.

Then there are the dollars that need to go to retirement and matching fica funds and Obamacare dollars and OSHA safety training seminars and on and on...

So your own stupid ass math again leaves out all of the ancillary costs associated with the labor force that has jack shit to do with the actual salary paid to the employee.

So my premise still stands the test and you are once again proved wrong because you don't have the first f***ing clue about that which you prattle on about.

I mean you seriously tried to bulls!t us in to believing that the USA is a NET EXPORTER OF OIL. How damn stupid do you have to be to believe that UNIONISTA BS?