WARN Act and Sequestration

#1
rjd970

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
24,302
Likes
24,341
#1
Sky Talk: GOP senators to Obama: No dollars to pay for defense firms sequestration WARN Act costs

Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors have said they will not issue notices to employees warning of possible layoffs due to the possibility of across the board budget cuts in January.

The about face came after the Obama administration, which really doesn't want layoff notices going out days before the election, assured the companies that if budget cuts do hit programs and they do have to lay off workers they could bill the government for costs they incurred due to WARN Act violations.
Click to expand...

This is shady as hell.

Let's get this straight....Obama (i.e...the american public) will cover the costs incurred to defense contractors due to WARN Act violations so said defense contractors won't send out lay-off notices days before the election.

This administration and congress can't come to a spending agreement, so now the administration is reduced to bribing contractors not to let their people know when they will get layed off.

I really hope Romney brings this up during at last one of the debates.
 
#2
#2
Doesn't seem legit. Obama says it, and companies abide despite possibly opening themselves up for penalties. I have a hard time believing companies would just take him at his word and not the law on this one. Not smart business.
 
#3
#3
Obama Administration Tells Contractors Facing Sequestration to Not Warn Employees About Potential Layoffs - Forbes

Lockheed: No Sequestration Layoff Notices This Year | Defense News | defensenews.com

Citing guidance from the White House released Sept. 28 that the government would shoulder the cost of potential lawsuits if broad factory closings are required, the company has decided not to issue notices that it previously said would be required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Jennifer Allen wrote in an email.

“The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable,” Allen wrote.
Click to expand...


Lockheed further states that no lay-offs are anticipated...but it is clear they fully expect any legal costs, should there be any, to be covered by the government.
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
That's terrible. So is the White House memo as good as law? If I was a company I would be skeptical. But I also wouldn't want to issue the warnings to employees as it would cause talent to flee. And if this is a WARN exception, why should taxpayers foot the bill? It reads as if typically, nobody picks up the bill and the employee is left hanging. What makes this different?
 
#6
#6
the Obama bus has gotten larger and should he win re-election, Lockheed and other companies relying on the promise of government assistance in this matter, will be thrown under it
 
#7
#7
Weezy said:
That's terrible. So is the White House memo as good as law? If I was a company I would be skeptical. But I also wouldn't want to issue the warnings to employees as it would cause talent to flee. And if this is a WARN exception, why should taxpayers foot the bill? It reads as if typically, nobody picks up the bill and the employee is left hanging. What makes this different?
Click to expand...

No, if an employee is not given 60 days prior notice to a layoff, then the employee has legal recourse against the employer under the WARN act. What the administration is saying is "Don't give the 60 day notice if it means the notice will be before the election, and if there is any legal recourse by the employee the government will foot the bill for the employer".

Not sure if the memo is as good as law or how strongly it is guaranteed.

Like I said, this is just shady and reeks of legal bribing.
 
#8
#8
Doesn't matter. Obama could shoot 20 people in Times Square and people would still vote for him.
 
#9
#9
“Despite DoL’s guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration,” the Sept. 28 guidance said. “To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices, this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DoL guidance, then any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.”
Click to expand...

Everytime I read something like this I'm convinced the world rotates on lawyer fees. Every piece of legislation/memos is intended for more charge hours.
 
#11
#11
golfballs said:
**** yeah it's shady. Obama don't care. He doesn't give a ****
Click to expand...

riker_gifapplause-vi.gif



The Obama administration has shown utter disregard for the law and willingness, even enthusiasm to do as it wishes even if it directly violates the constitution or statute duly passed by congress.

Barry missed his calling, he would probalby have made a good interior decorator but he is a lousy president.

obama_curtains.jpg
 
#13
#13
No news here. I guess nobody read the part about "broad plant closures". Just won't happen. Throwing Lockheed under the bus. Really. About as damning as throwing GM under the bus.




edit: change broad "plant closures" to "broad factory closures". Still won't happen.
 
#15
#15
I don't know what's worse - the WARN act itself or the overt politicization of the administration waiving the penalties of the WARN act to avoid bad political outcomes. Gee, if we only didn't have the WARN act none of this would be necessary.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
I don't know what's worse - the WARN act itself or the overt politicization of the administration waiving the penalties of the WARN act to avoid bad political outcomes. Gee, if we only didn't have the WARN act none of this would be necessary.
Click to expand...

The WARN Act is definitely worse; it costs corporations two months worth of labor expenses.
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
I don't know what's worse - the WARN act itself or the overt politicization of the administration waiving the penalties of the WARN act to avoid bad political outcomes. Gee, if we only didn't have the WARN act none of this would be necessary.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and this is coming from somebody in the defense industry that this is intended to help in this case.
 
#18
#18
I'm hoping if sequestration does happen it only affects what I do minimally. If the cuts are going to be broad based I hope they start heavy with the science project stuff and leave alone actively fielded systems. We have direct evidence of saving lives with what we do and it is completely defensive in nature.

But this is the government we are talking about, I'm not holding my breath what they will do makes sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top