Not everyone with everything. But the HR department of a billion dollar company should be fully comfortable with federal regulations regarding HR. I don't see how that's remotely controversial.
Do we really want to condone this legalistic regulatory cancer, where we now have to suffer even more boilerplate drivel being copypasta'd into the job postings? This is how we've ended up with at least 7 disclaimers on everything we buy.
I'd find the press release much more compelling if DOJ focused on actual harm actual people suffered, and dropped the handwaving about people being discouraged by simplistically-worded job postings. Generally if you're in a narrow corner case like ITAR-eligible but not citizen or permanent resident, you know to read through simple phrasings as stand-ins for the actual requirements.
> Y'all literally think following the law is controversial.
There's a lot of tension between those two statements. How is your "dodge taxes" any different from "follow government incentives"?
A few years back I got a pile of tax credits for replacing my home windows and garage door, and as a result paid a lot less in income tax that year. Am I a tax dodger? Or was I doing exactly what the policy makers wanted me to?
When corporations shuffle around their finances such that the tax codes extracts less money from them, are they being evil? If you think that this outcome is bad, I think your beef is more with the legislators and tax bureaucrats than it is with the corporations.
But follow the chain of this argument back up to the top. I was responding to a statement implying that everyone should have the resources to thoroughly understand the vast mountain of federal regulations.
You're objecting to my implication that companies should have sufficient resources to understand tax incentives - a tiny subset of federal regulation. Yet at the same time, you're supporting the idea that companies should invest sufficiently to understand a larger body of regulation, indeed a vast superset of what my statement implies.
